Jump to content

Talk:Jane Shin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Childhood illness

[edit]

I have removed the part about the misdiagnosis for two reasons:

1. Interviews with the subject, although I am sure they were done in good faith, are not published and verifiable. If there is a published reference for this, by all means it should go in.

2. This is a big one for me: These two references were written by Jane Shin herself, in 2013, just before and during the election campaign (and about 16 years after the misdiagnosis).

a. Only leukaemia is mentioned, not aplastic anemia.
b. Each autobiography gives the impression that Shin had leukaemia, and there is no mention of a misdiagnosis and correction to the diagnosis of aplastic anemia.
c. They are two unique articles, not a single one which has been published in two sources.
d. This is is not a case of erroneous reporting as they are Shin's own words.

HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extra caution required for biographical sources

[edit]
  • Good reminder Canuckle. I should add that there were also some Korean language media publications that reported incorrect information, which is not mentioned in the "Jane Shin speaks" article. If I can find references that detail this, I'll post it. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal articles

[edit]

Moving below list of journal articles co-authored by subject from the body of the article as lengthy text unnecessary and not known whether below articles are notable enough for detailed mention in her biography.

Shin is published in

  • The Plant Journal, "Identification of 4-coumarate:coenzyme A ligate (4CL) substrate recognition domains.", Jurgen Ehiting, Jane J k Shin, Carl J Douglas., 2001, publisher Wiley, Society for Experimental Biology.
  • Then in 2007, "Symptoms of autonomic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome," J.L. NEWTON, O. OKONKWO, K. SUTCLIFFE, A. SETH, J. SHIN and D.E.J. JONES, July 7, 2007, From the Fatigue Interest group and Liver Research Group, Institute for Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, UK.
  • And, in 2009, "Lower Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome," JULIA L. NEWTON, MD, PHD, AMISH SHETH, MD, JANE SHIN, MD, JESSIE PAIRMAN, KATHARINE WILTON, JENNIFER A. BURT, AND DAVID E. J. JONES, MD, PHD, in Psychosomatic Medicine, 71:361–365 (2009), for her Doctoral thesis.

Canuckle (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "known whether below articles are notable enough" - this rational is illogical and flawed and injected with a bias to disallow any information that supports Shin's education. Siding the conservatism, inclusion should be the rule if the editor is "unsure" vs removal. In other instances where there appears to be negative information, it is "included" not removed. For this reason, I find the editors here biased towards negative information, and information that does not support her accomplishments.Alleongto (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe what the original poster meant was: should the detailed text of publication title/author names/journal descriptions should be included in the biography? The two chronic fatigue papers are already mentioned with footnotes in the education paragraph, so those are not at issue. I think the Plant Journal publication is up for discussion however. Hope this makes sense. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Julio Montaner has published more than 450 scientific articles. Should all of them be listed with full list of co-authors in the middle of his bio? NO. The 3 that are listed are under External Reading given their significant international notability verified by independent sources and described elsewhere in the article. If Shin's 3 articles above need more than a footnoted reference to verify their existence, could someone please provide some description from an independent, reliable source that explains why they are notable (on their own, or for the subject of this article)? The notability guidelines for scientists WP:ACADEMICS may provide some useful criteria. Canuckle (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education Discussion

[edit]

The sentence about Shin's UBC education should include the fact that she did not receive an undergraduate degree. Shin gave two interviews to local newspapers (Burnaby Now, Burnaby NewsLeader) to clarify her educational and work background after the election because there was some controversy/confusion regarding those two factors during the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HummingbirdShimmer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of her education is an attempt to discredit Ms. Shin. It is noteworthy Hummingbird used "controversy/confusion". there was no controversy - ethics violations. Just confusion and that is why there was 'clarification.' All future references should be noted to reduce confusion and further writing on this matter exemplifies the attempt to generate controversy over confusion.

In "attempting to take down" a person's credibility, the media and, therefore this editorializing has wasted space by not focusing on the work performed by the MLA and instead, must continue focus on an old minor red herring,... her educational training received. She did not lie with the intent to deceive.

At worst, her training (whether it is in cell biology or as an academic doctor) is not like law or political science, which prepares an individual for policy and politics. Focusing on not receiving a Bachelor (although she received a Doctorate) appears to be focusing on issues where there is none. She completed a doctorate, which is higher than a Bachelor or Undergraduate degree.

One of the journalists commented on the lack of pedigree / prestige of the school, which is subjective, arbitrary and elitist. Fortunately, no Wikipedia editors quoted that elitist statement by a newspaper journalist. Had Wiki editors quoted that journalist in Ms. Shin's bio, it would posit once "anything is published," it is fair game to include.

Facts and intent of journalists should also be verified and no taken at face value. Oftentimes, journalists need to drive controversy to drive readership and thus advertising dollars. Incitement, excitement and headlines drives more eyeballs. I am not stating this may have always been the case with all Ms. Shin's critics, but let's not be naive with some reporters. for these reasons, I argue for the removal of "did not graduate" because:

1. It is a red herring

2. Nobody graduates with a degree in cell biology--it is a course in many courses, just like in a Bachelor of Commerce, finance courses are mixed with marketing and human resources. Cell biology is not a specialization at the undergraduate level for which you get a degree.

3. Reduce attempts to generate controversy over confusion

Alleongto (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a lengthy response to this, so I will break it down into several small pieces. 1. I don't believe it is a red herring. It is a paragraph about Shin's education/training and therefore relevant. Christy Clark's Wikipedia bio, for example, mentions that she studied at several institutions and "never graduated with a degree", so there is precedent for this. 2. At UBC, under the Faculty of Science, there is indeed a Cell Biology and Genetics program. Graduates receive a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) undergraduate degree. So your comment is factually incorrect. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are some of the reasons (oldest to most recent) Alleongto has used to justify removing the statement “but did not receive an undergraduate degree” from UBC. My comments follow each quote:
”Shin did graduate with credits/coursework.” No reference was given as proof of this statement.
”…editorial attempts to discredit and tarnish reputation of subject Ms. Shin. by their attempt to use negative words such as "failure, in descriptively painting facts.” I, nor other editors to my knowledge, ever used the word “failure” in the description of Shin’s UBC education, and Alleongto’s introduction of this word is interesting.
”The Burnaby now article is incorrect. One cannot "not graduate" and then get a doctorate degree without a Baccalaurate.” Therefore I provided a second reference. The second comment is true for certain doctorates - a Ph.D. for example. However, a bachelor's degree is not always necessary for entry into a professional program such as medical school.
”not noteworthy - editorial negativity bias motive by editor to tarnish reputation of elected official in office.” I respectfully disagree with both assertions.
”It’s a red herring” Addressed in my previous comments posting, above
”Nobody graduates with a degree in cell biology” Untrue, also addressed above
”Reduce attempts to generate controversy over confusion” I disagree, stating this fact with two references to back it up actually reduces chances of confusion. Given that entrance to medical programs in Canadian universities is so competitive, the bar has been raised and completion of an undergraduate is usually necessary. Canadian readers of this Wiki page would assume by Alleongto’s message that studying at UBC several years and then graduating with a medical degree would have resulted in a UBC B.Sc. and a Spartan M.D.
The fact that the editor Alleongto would first state that Shin had graduated UBC, with no proof, and then change his reasoning constantly (including several untruths) is quite concerning. Jane Shin’s direct input is mentioned in many of his justifications, and interviews between Shin and Alleongto have occurred to facilitate these edits. I find it quite interesting that attempts to mislead readers regarding Shin’s education, given what happened during the campaign (which I haven’t even mentioned beyond adding back the referenced term “controversies”), appear to be happening again. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NDP Nomination Discussion

[edit]

The following sentence is up for discussion: please point out what words/phrases are concerning. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shin's only competitor for the nomination was Craig Langston,[1] after musician Joe Keithley was reportedly told by the party to consider running elsewhere due to "bigger names" vying for the Burnaby-Lougheed NDP nomination.[2]

  • Thanks for adding this topic to Talk page. I was just about to do same. I respectfully disagree with your suggestion to keep this sentence. Joe Keithley has a wikipedia bio so is a notable person but he did not actually file nomination papers. The party nomination process doesn't sound very notable and I have edited down similar nomination sentences from other MLA bios. The "bigger names" part has quotation marks but in the newspaper article it is actually a paraphrase and not a direct quote from Keithley. The impact of the statement could be interpreted as an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Shin's nomination that likely should not be kept in this bio unless other sources verify the notability of the claim. Does that make sense? Canuckle (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I should move the Keithley segment to his wiki bio instead? I plan on adding his Coquitlam nomination attempt to his page anyway. I do remember that Keithley's informal announcement, then retraction, regarding Burnaby-Lougheed generated several news reports. My thinking was this would provide some context about the interest of potential NDP candidates. Also Harry Bloy was not running again and had had some controversies, making this an promising seat for the NDP. Since Shin's political career is quite recent, I gave more weight to the nomination race. I do, however, think that mention of Langston as her competitor. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This statement is interpreted as attempting to undermine the competitiveness, not legitimacy, of Shin's candidacy. The use of the word 'only' here is unnecessary and injects bias. Many other districts have 1 or no competitors but are not necessarily called out in this way as standard practice. Just because it may have been written by a publication does not necessarily make it correct in terms of NPOV for that publication, nor for Wikipedia. The reporter's inherent bias should not be construed as fact, but opinion. Wikipedia editors therefore should rely on statements of fact tainted with bias legitimately and remove a negative POV from encylopedic standards for writing and editing, unless that statement by the journalist is also enclosed with quotation marks. Alleongto — Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your feedback. As I've addressed above, I think I will move the Keithley portion to his wiki page. In that case, the word 'only' would not be necessary anymore. My use of 'only' was not meant to undermine competitiveness, it was made in context of the Keithley situation (which generated several news reports). I still think it's important to note that Langston was her competitor; we can remove 'only'. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


References

[edit]
  1. ^ Chow, Wanda (September 17 2012). "Two candidates seeking NDP nomination for Burnaby-Lougheed". Burnaby NewsLeader. Retrieved 31 May 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Chow, Wanda (April 27 2012). "Joe Keithley seeks NDP nod-somewhere". Retrieved 31 May 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Narrow victory

[edit]
  • Feels silly taking up space to explain a single adjective, but use of "narrow" victory was alleged by an editor to be negative or partisan. In looking through the edit history, the adjective dated back to the preliminary election-night count of a 315-vote margin (so close that winner herself said she avoided acceptance speech). The word stayed in the article even after the final count of absentee ballots led to 743-vote margin. Someone later removed the word 'narrow' citing that several ridings were of similar range. Fair change given the statistics. Just want to prevent further false claims that this was a partisan or negative edit. Canuckle (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In of itself, the word 'narrow' may describe one person's perception, but the percentages reveal a different story. there is further, no standard to define narrow in percentage of numerical votes. for the US election with Gore, 1 million votes out of 300 million citizens was a narrow victory. It is arbitrary and was injected to paint a picture, when in full context with other negatively presented information ("controversy" language, to describe confusion) to discredit Ms. Shin. One clearly would or would not argue that it was a 'landslide' victory, but one could, and editors would likely remove that modifier, despite no standards contrary (percentage of votes), and such modifiers tend to exacerbate bias in context of the whole passage. For instance, I injected the modifier, on purpose, with another candidate, "only x% votes" to determine if there are any biases invoked/tolerated for other candidates using these simple words. And almost instantly, the use of the word "only" was removed. In this way, I find that editors here do understand the nuances of carefully placed modifiers and respectfully request the editors of Ms. Shin's site to be more careful and neutral in usage, given the full context of the passage for NPOV.Alleongto — Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an accuracy issue not a neutrality issue. Some may view the adjective 'narrow' as criticism while others would view it as a compliment (akin to scoring an overtime goal to win the Stanley Cup). Follow the fundamental principle of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and stop assuming there is a motive or bias regarding routine edits. Canuckle (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left-wing pundit and political strategist Bill Tieleman described Shin's win as "narrow" in the days following the election. (see opinion piece in The Tyee). A Postmedia reporter used the adjective "narrow" to describe a 900-vote margin in a neighbouring riding, and used the same word for Shin's margin over Kramer -- given margin is said to be just 25 votes, likely to be amount as of 10:45pm on election-night as described in article (see Fight to the finish in Burnaby ridings. Fair to question accuracy and readers' perception of the adjective, but use by journalists and NDP supporters of the adjective in the public realm means use in wikipedia shouldn't be assumed to be a biased or negative edit. Canuckle (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer work and awards

[edit]
  • I've removed that sentence (and welcome it's corrected return) because it was improperly referenced. Here are the reasons why: 1. The reference used (Jane Shin's bio from the NDP by Jennifer Moreau) did not mention the Multiculturalism Society. 2. There description of what the City of Surrey award was is not consistent with the reference (no description). Furthermore, a Google search shows that Shin received a youth award from the City of Surrey in 1996, when she was 16. I think this award, if worth mentioning on her Wikipedia page, should provide the context that it was a youth award and not a recent one. However, if Shin did receive another, recent award from the City of Surrey, please point us to a reference. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Newsmaker of the Year" award

[edit]

I have reverted the Burnaby Newsmaker of the Year sentence for the following reasons:

1. The Newsmaker year article does not reward Shin “despite her missteps”. Actually, that is the very reason she received the title, according to the first sentence from the article: “Looking back over 2013, there was one local figure who rose above the rest when it came to controversy and drama: Burnaby’s newest MLA, Jane Shin.”

2. Being the first NDP member elected since 1991 isn’t mentioned in the Newsmaker article. Perhaps this should be elected in the election results instead, with a reference.

3. The reference for the previous point has been removed because it is an opinion letter written to the Burnaby Now by Glen Porter, and does not provide a source for the statement. As a side note, a Google search reveals Porter is President of the Burnaby-Lougheed NDP, which he does not disclaim in his letter.

4. To remove positive spin that was possibly politically motivated. HummingbirdShimmer (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Neutrality review of edit history

[edit]
  • Given the repeated recent allegations of edits being motivated by bias or point-of-view against the subject, I reviewed the article's history since its beginning in keeping with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I see little evidence to support the number of allegations that negatively-biased editors are seeking to tarnish or defame the subject. Several instances where users accused of negative bias (I and HummingbirdShimmer) actually added content and sources to verify the subject's medical education, etc. Certainly there may be some edit disagreements, but they could be clarified and resolved with respectful dialogue and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The biggest threat to WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View actually appears to be from political supporters. I assume that those contributors are not as experienced as others in collaborative writing or editorial dialogue, are not aware of interest in avoiding over-quoting in biographies, that a bio is not a resume for the subject, and that removals of political promotional content is not defamation but part of safeguarding the article from both opponents and supporters. Below review is somewhat subjective of course. May also have missed some edits. Goal is still to have best, neutral and succinct article.
Neutrality review by Canuckle
topic description of edit (sources? notable? trivial?) Neutral? Comments
anti-NDP defamation of medical education? Stub only had 2 sentences. First addition by Canuckle sources NDP bio to source medical education. No mention of criticism of credentials. Neutral? Yes
childhood disease verification Sources varied in describing disease. Canuckle Revised language to avoid potential sense of criticism Neutral? Yes
Is she physician? Did she do research? Canuckle Added her to category: woman physicians and also added wikilink to one of her scientific papers. Also added Medical Doctor wikilink to her post-nominal MD Neutral? Yes. But physician category later removed by other editor
2013 Election controversies Canuckle added Burnaby Newsmaker of Year with one sentence describing related controversies. Purposefully avoided diving into details which could be seen as onetime, complex to verify, local election issues and not long-term notable Neutral? Yes
Is "narrow" victory a criticism? Canuckle replaced vague "fewer than 500" votes with actual election-night total of 315 with link to national source that claimed "impressive" "edging" victory. Then HummingbirdShimmer later updates with source for final count of larger 700+ vote margin Neutral? Yes. See above NARROW section on Talk page for end result
2013 Election controversies Alleongto replaced language from national source with judgemental tone such as "disgruntled media" and claimed "media bias" in summary. Also in second edit Neutral? No
Medical education HummingbirdShimmer removed a primary-source link to political site that duplicated other content, had judgemental language like "well-respected" and whose link no longer had the quoted text Neutral? Yes
1st legislature speech Alleongto added to direct quote from Hansard that replaced paraphrasing with more dramatic language and erroneous description (wrote instead of spoke) Neutral? No. Full context unnecessary & sounds like political promotion
2013 Election controversy - bio confusion Alleongto adds direct quote of MLA's apology for causing biography confusion in election campaign Neutral? Somewhat No. Sounds like political promotion. Neutral would have detailed opponents' criticisms (with sources) prior to adding subject's apology & only include direct quote if regarded as notable quote in reliable sources
2013 Election controversy - bio confusion Alleongto adds the reason for the above apology but rather than provide neutral, sourced criticism or summary of controversies, he adds political-promo direct quote blaming opponents for character assasination Neutral? NO.
2013 Election controversy - media availability Alleongto adds another direct quote from subject with no reliable source. Claims personal statement made to him by article subject. Neutral? No. One-sided. Unverified.
2013 Election controvery - bio confusion Canuckle removes Alleongto's direct quotes of apologies with explanation in summary Neutral? YES given they are direct quotes and lacking neutral context
Medical education Anonymous editor (likely Alleongto) changes academic training language. But unnecessarily alleges attempt to discredit and tarnish subject in summary and suggest word "failure" was used when it was not. Neutral? Not in summary language
Election spending Alleongto adds direct quote from subject touting their fundraising Neutral? No. shouldn't add direct quote that sounds like political promotion. Also claims that funds came from residents where reality is 80% or so came from party headquarters
Youth volunteerism Canuckle removed Alleongto's addition of teenage volunteerism that was sourced only by legislative bio. Sounded trivial and possibly political promotional. Neutral? Yes. Minor edit justified in summary
Medical Education HummingbirdShimmer adds reference to verify Alleongto's previous addition of Medical Council recognition of Caribbean training Neutral? Yes, very.
Election spending Anonymous editor (likely Alleongto) reframes election spending to election "victory" and says subject wanted emphasis on fundraising not spending while alleging bias in summary Neutral? No. appears political promotional
E-petition bill Anonymous editor (likely Alleongto) adds direct quote from subject touting her first piece of legislation. Then did it again. Neutral? No. Do not need political promotional direct quote for minor bill still at first reading status in legislature WP:PROMOTION WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
2013 Election controversies Anonymous editor (likely Alleongto) replaces 'controversies' with 'missteps' Neutral? No. Judgemental term, not neutral, while alleging in summary that commonly-used wikipedia word 'controversy' is unethical

Canuckle (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jane Shin. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Shin&oldid=1205278210"