Talk:Livi Zheng

Controversies regarding Livi Zheng

Dear 45.48.15.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

It seems that you have a very persistent intention to keep Wikipedia from including factual, major aspects of Livi Zheng in this article. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion/advertisement and that important, credible information regarding anyone who is the subject of a biography article can be included regardless of whether said information reflects positively/negatively on the person. Your edits consistently removes valid criticisms against Livi Zheng that have been well documented on major publications (not including the ones you referred to as libelous/false, which had been removed as soon as it was noticed). Furthermore, a lot of information that you included in your edits are not supported by any references and when there is a reference, it links to self-made claims and/or published on unverifiable source. Please stop making reverts of the article edits as it could constitute an edit war.

Thanks. CalliPatra (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@R578J: Can you please discuss instead of edit warring? It's not acceptable to scrub this article of all information about criticism. What are your concerns about the material you keep removing? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Joko, CalliPatra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Mx. Granger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

I am grateful for the fact that we can have a constructive and fruitful dialogue. I know this must be incredibly taxing to continue modifying the edits to this page, and I am looking forward to moving past this. Can you please elaborate upon the aspects of this article that you consider "self promotion/advertisement" and why you consider them as such? Can you also cite which pieces of information are credible and provide evidence that these edits are not being made as a result of personal bias? Which statements provided are not supported by a reference? Furthermore, how do you define an unverifiable source? Transparency and concise definitions on your part could alleviate some of this tension for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. I agree that criticism has a place in Wikipedia, but these articles are supposed to reflect a professional and respectful tone that provides neutral, accurate information. I am struggling to see how your edits make such a contribution. Any clarification you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Joko, :@CalliPatra:, :@Mx. Granger:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonatienAlphonseFrancois10 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi DonatienAlphonseFrancois10. The unsourced praise for Zheng and her films is not acceptable – information in the article should be cited to reliable sources, and opinions like "It is an unforgettable blend..." cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice (see WP:Neutral point of view).

To clarify where I'm coming from: I have no feelings for or against Livi Zheng. I had never heard of her until a few days ago when I saw this article at WP:NPOVN. My goal is to make this article neutral and verifiable. @R578J and DonatienAlphonseFrancois10: Do you have any personal or professional relationship with Livi Zheng? If so, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi :@Mx. Granger:. Thank you for your quick reply. Actually, I have not yet edited anything on Wikipedia. My day job is a professor and my class is doing a project in cyber bullying. My students have showed me the editing history of this page, and some of them believe that the user CalliPatra may be running a smear campaign against Ms. Zheng. Since I am still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia, I think this project would be a great learning moment for all of us.

I think if the three of us could work together on this project to ensure that Wikipedia is a safe and fun environment for everyone, this could a great teachable moment for my students.

Mx. Granger, would you be willing to provide a full list of statements that you feel are not neutral as well as sources that are not reliable? We could then work to make this page more accurate and better in line with Wikipedia's goals.

@CalliPatra:, would you also be willing to work with us on this? I would love to convince my students that the internet is a space for thoughtful dialogue and putting their minds at ease regarding editing history would also be a great moment to show how people can put aside their differences.

I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonatienAlphonseFrancois10 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. In the current version of the article, I'd say the following statements are not neutrally phrased:

• Grammy Award Winning American singer-songwriter Judith Hill – this sounds promotional – it would be better to just wikilink Judith Hill and let readers follow the link if they want more information about her.
• a story of this profound and irreplicable love. Love - it’s more than a relationship between two people. It is a connection between two souls that embodies a passion for music and culture.
• Their ambitious project is unlike anything else in the music industry: the creation of a music video that bends the rules of gamelan and Funk to create an awe inspiring music video set in Joshua Tree National Park.
• It is an unforgettable blend

Overall, I think the plot summaries in the article are too detailed. I would suggest we keep them brief and let readers follow links to the articles about the films for detailed information. The other significant problem with the current version is that a number of claims are unsourced (in other words, they don't have a footnote to a source where the claim can be verified). In particular, the awards and martial arts competitions need to be cited to reliable sources.

I'm not familiar with all of the sources cited in the current version of the article, but the ones I am familiar with look reliable, except for IMDB which is generally not reliable.

By the way, you can sign your talk page comments with your username and a timestamp by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of the comment. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, everyone, I am about to lose hope with this page and Ken Zheng altogether. I can't help but raise my suspicion again that the subjects of these two pages (the Zhengs, going forward) are either the persons behind these accounts that keep on reverting any edits from other Wikipedia contributors or are related to (either by interest or payment) them directly with the sole intention of using Wikipedia as promotional avenues that are more like personal diaries or resumes (with a bunch of unverifiable, non-credible sources).

First it was the unknown user with masked IP address. And then another user @R578J:. Now this supposed professor.

And having traced back other accounts with history of editing these two pages, all I can say is that many of them have one thing in common: their only contributions in Wikipedia have been exclusively on the Zhengs' pages. I don't think we can ever confirm, but I honestly think @Mx. Granger: the only way to fix this situation is by making this page protected. I thank you for jumping in on this with me.

If there's any doubt about my credibility as a Wikipedia contributor (or in the words of this "professor", that I'm engaged in a smear campaign), check out my user page and look at all the contributions I've made across the film/actor categories. I gather sources and write words based on evidence--good or bad I honestly don't care. It's Wikipedia, not your advertisement board.

This will never end unless the page is made protected. Even if one random user is blocked from editing due to edit warring, they'll just make a new one or use a different IP address. Protecting it will at least assure us only users with certain credibility are able to make changes. I don't know the Zhengs, and I'm not interested in their success/failure, so if they want to continue their coordinated efforts to use Wikipedia as advertisement, then I'll leave it in the administrators' hands because I have a lot of Wiki projects I'm working on out of sheer, genuine interest to build good, free articles for everyone to read. — CalliPatra (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose this will be easier if we all try to assume good faith. CalliPatra, now that we've got a discussion going, let's see if we can come to a consensus. DonatienAlphonseFrancois10, it would help if you could clarify your concerns about the other version of the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger:: Thank you for the feedback. So, this is my first time editing a Wikipedia page, so please bear with me. I showed your suggestions to my class and we collectively took a stab at the suggestions that you made.

We tried to reframe this article in a more neutral, journalistic tone. For example, we removed the statements that you cited about Judith Hill being a grammy award winner, all of the stuff about profound love, the unforgettable blend, and the ambitious project. I believe this reads better and more like a Wikipedia article - what do you think?

The summaries are also much more concise - you are correct, the internet is full of much more detailed plot summaries, so let’s keep it simple on Wikipedia. I believe that we also tightened up the references. Do you think this will work?

Thank you again :@Mx. Granger:: for your constructive comments and feedback. I hope we can continue this conversation.

@CalliPatra:: Thank you also for your feedback. Ad hominem attacks on my credentials always brighten my day. Let’s try to keep our tone professional and respectful on the Wikipedia platform.

Again, it was my students who brought your editing history to my attention and chose this page for their project. Would you feel comfortable explaining why you praise some pages almost daily and write negative comments on others daily as well? I think this could be a great teachable moment.

You also mentioned that you are losing hope with this page and Ken Zheng. I am struggling to understand why you say you are losing hope. What exactly is your hope for Ken Zheng and this page?

I believe this new version of the page has addressed some of our classes’ concerns about the old version of the page - it had a pretty negative tone. I believe this new version is neutral ground - :@CalliPatra: and :@Mx. Granger: what do you think? (DonatienAlphonseFrancois10 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC))

Those edits look like an improvement to me, though more work is needed, and I think some of the information from this revision should be restored. @Japan Railway: Could you explain why you reverted? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I misunderstood it as a vandalism. I'm still immature, so I happen to accidentally make such a mistake. --Japan Railway (talk · contribs · count) 10:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored most of DonatienAlphonseFrancois10's edits and have also re-added some information from earlier revisions of the article, with some adjustments. I haven't re-added the paragraph about the Madrid festival because as far as I can tell it was cited to a primary source and a source that doesn't mention Zheng. I haven't re-added the information about The Santri either, because I can't read Indonesian, but I'm certainly open to that information being restored. Any thoughts? Are there any major problems with the material currently in the article, and does anything else need to be added? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi :@Mx. Granger:. I think these edits look good, and I agree with the changes on the Madrid film festival. I am also like you; I am not able to evaluate the information about The Santri, so maybe let’s leave it out until something else comes along in terms of sources? I made a couple of minor changes to the article - what do you think? (DonatienAlphonseFrancois10 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC))

It's fine to cite foreign-language sources (WP:NONENG) – I haven't added them myself, but if someone speaks Indonesian I welcome them doing so. I suggest we rely on secondary sources as much as possible. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi :@Mx. Granger:, do we need update WP:NPOVN? I feel like now that the article has been greatly improved this Noticeboard’s points are less germane than before. (DonatienAlphonseFrancois10 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

There's no need. The discussion at NPOVN will be archived automatically in a few weeks. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved back to its original location; the "hoax" is how much press she received, which is currently not in the article anyway. It was an improper move and so this IAR close is just reverting that. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Livi Zheng → Livi Zheng – "Should be moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livi_Zheng" Punkerplus (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• The real question is, what's this about? Dekimasuよ! 06:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• [1] This link makes it pretty clear that this is a hoax. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Move back and start a deletion discussion. Although she may have exaggerated her success in interviews, this is not a Wikipedia hoax – it contains information verifiable in reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.