Talk:Surya Subedi

Promotional tone

Until recently this article was a showcase for why we have WP:WTW, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:NPOV guidelines. In that it was populated with uncited and subjective terms ("prestigious", "picturesque", etc), unattributed opinions ("one of those rare academics", "he is proud"), and unnecessary adjectives ("substantial reports", "major charity", "flagship journal", "expert member" - instead of just "reports", "charity", "member", etc). While the article is still tagged as reading substantively like a subjective/promotional resume, rather than an objective/dispassionate bio, many of these more problematic tonal issues had/have been addressed. However, in recent weeks there seem to be attempts to start creeping/sneaking these judgement statements back in again. The anon editor(s?) who are seeking to add this uncited and subjective content would ideally review the project's guidelines on editing motivations, avoiding undisclosed editing on articles with which they may have an association, and generally only adding content which can be verified and/or attributed. Edits which do not uphold these norms will need to be considered relative to the project's core principles. Including those guidelines relating to what the project is about. (Hint: It is not about promotion or a parallel to LinkedIn). Guliolopez (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The behaviour highlighted above continues to be a concern. Not satisfied with letting statements stand on their own merit, edits continue to be made to introduce loaded language and unattributed POV and subjectivity. For example, instead of just saying "X received an honour", we feel compelled to editorialise with "X received a high level honour" - without any support for this editorial. I would encourage interested editors to provide substantive and independent references for any of these kinds of editorial flourishes - or simply stop making them. If we can increase the number of reliable/impartial references used, reduce the level of editorial and minimise the "Resume/LinkedIn"-style overtones, we can remove the related hatnotes. Otherwise this article will continue to slide into obvious puff-piece - and completely devalue the (apparent) intent. Guliolopez (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(Revisited 2020). While some of the quasi-promotional/non-neutral editing patterns had abated in recent years, I note that it seems to be creeping back in again. And so I have restored the relevant tag. If editors with a potential conflict-of-interest cannot restrain themselves from editing, then they should please edit with consideration to this project's guidelines. For example, additions should be:

• Verifiable. There is nothing, for example, in the provided sources about the subject's imprisonment for student activism. If sources are available, then please provide them. Otherwise please remove the text.
• Free of editorial. If someone was a "student leader", then state as much. We don't need the flourish which makes this "active student leader". Ditto "his notable publications include", "Notably over his long career he has worked..", "he is a leading international jurist", etc. Facts can/should stand on their own. If the author needs to embellish or editorialise with a flower adjective, then the author should question why they feel the need to do so. Otherwise please stop with the editorial/promotional flourishes.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

(Revisited 2023). WP:SPA editors, who continue to add promotional editorial and unattributed opinions to the article (like this) are reminded to read WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and MOS:AWW. And WP:PRIMARY for that matter. Guliolopez (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the language I recent added, based upon a YouTube interview in which the Director of the National University of Singapore's Centre for International Law referred to the subject in such terms. I have received permission form the NUS CIL to include a link to their video, and refrred to that when I added the language, and the link to the video. I can certainly use the exact word's which the interviewer, a member of the International Law Commission, used about the subject. Would that be considered NOT promotional and attributed? Landnama (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

For example, in the transcript of the video, Professor Nilüfer Oral (member of the International Law Commissions: https://law.nus.edu.sg/people/nilufer-oral/) says: "Professor Subedi meets all the criteria of being a truly illustrious speaker and a distinguished, truly illustrious speaker and a distinguished scholar and practitioner of international law."

Can that be included, attributed?? Landnama (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Landnama. RE:

• "referring to the language I recent added". Yes. I was referring to the language, in the lead, which I removed in this edit. Specifically: "Professor Subedi is highly regarded as one of the world's most accomplished and proficient academics in international law". I removed this text, as per the related edit summary, because the opinion described was unattributed (as expected by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), the tone was promotional and passive voice (covered in WP:PROMO and MOS:AWW) and the reference used was a YouTube video (to which WP:RSPYT applies).
• "use the exact word's which the interviewer [..] used". If an opinion is being expressed then, as above and with consideration also to MOS:PMC, it should be true to source. And shouldn't be paraphrased or applied to a group of unknown/unnamed people.
• "Can that be included[?]". Personally I don't understand the intent of adding the opinion (of one person) to the lead. As if the opinion of that person should be afforded significant weight. The facts, including those laid-out in the "honours" section, more than stand on their own - without the need for additional boosterism and editorial. How is the article improved by adding this quote/opinion to the lead? What additional information is communicated to the reader?

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, understood. I will drop it. Thank you for clarifying. Landnama (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Guliolopez Thanks for your tireless work protecting this article from fluff, puffery and everything in between! I just wiped out some of the most extreme WP:OVERLINK offenses I've seen in my short time editing en.wiki, what a headache.

Since you've been so good as to list concerns here, I wanted to add as I noted in an edit summary, it would be ideal for someone with copyvio checking tools to review the section which lists and describes the subject's publications- in numerous places the summaries have my spidey senses tingling, as a lapsed academic myself- they definitely seem copy-pasted from the words of publishing houses on a promotional bender!

Arguably there is legitimately no reason to have that list in here- while the subject is clearly excellent and notable, I have not often seen someone's publication CV copied whole cloth into their Wikipedia article, as one can just click through to see their pubs on the page the info originated from. I try to avoid large deletions without confirmation from others, though- take this as my "yes" vote to delete the list if you think it's wise! Chiselinccc (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chiselinccc. And thanks for your note. RE:

• "protecting this article from fluff, puffery and everything in between". Indeed. It's been a longstanding issue. That, for some reason, keeps creeping back.
• "wiped out some of the most extreme WP:OVERLINK offenses I've seen". Agreed. I concur that the near DICDEF level of linking (of simple words like "treaty" and "foothills" and large places like "Cambodia" and "France") was well within the bounds of WP:OLINK. And many/most were unnecessary and readily removable.
• "section which lists and describes the subject's publications [..] seem copy-pasted from the words of publishing houses on a promotional bender". Also agreed. A quick copyvio test suggests that several promotional/subjective turns-of-phrase (like "[work X] includes a critical overview of the law of foreign investment" or "[book Y] creates a modern vision of the United Nations" or "[publication Z is] the flagship journal of the Bar Council of England"), most of which are in that section, do appear to be duplicated from a connected/promotional source. And, even if we ignore the NPOV/PROMO issues and focus only on COPYVIO concerns, I am inclined to remove them. Unless there are other thoughts or justifications (from other editors) on why such promotional/editorial language should remain(?)

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Guliolopez Thanks for your thoughtful and in-depth response! I agree on all points, and I'm grateful for your linkout to the sourceforge site: I had assumed more experienced editors were tapping into behind-the-scenes tools to check copyvio, I didn't realize there was an openly available web tool to do so, so I'll definitely bookmark that.

I suppose it's fair to await input from the page's most recent enthusiast, I must admit I left a plea on their talk page to be more careful about OVERLINK, miscategorization, and other avoidable errors; after cleaning up their mistakes here, I briefly checked and the problems they're adding to en.wiki in their enthusiasm go beyond this page. I'm hoping they'll actually reflect on the amount of unnecessary work this is creating for volunteers, or at least read some of the policy pages they're so gleefully violating 😅 Again, count my vote as a yes though, once we hear from others or a few days have passed! Take care and best wishes. Chiselinccc (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)