User talk:Rita Colmar

Welcome!

Hello, Rita Colmar, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! DanCherek (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll try to edit something and if I meet any difficulties may I consult you again ?

Regards.

Rita Colmar Rita Colmar (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hi Rita Colmar! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Kris Wu rape case that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Also, take care of not using tabloid articles or self-published sources as references. the way that the article is written on daydaynews.cc leads me to believe that it is a machine translated article (it made more sense after parsing it into Chinese mentally) and it is just gossip without confirmation from the person. Zhihu is a QnA site, a self-published source. – robertsky (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder. As I am new to Wikipedia I will take your advice and be more careful in editing.

Regards,

Rita Colmar Rita Colmar (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Robertsky. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you are inserting new content, especially for a contentious topic like this subject here, cite your references. Also be mindful of your formatting and typographical errors. i.e. extraneous spacings, referring Du Meizhu as Dumeizhu, etc. – robertsky (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder. I'll leave out the the part on MeToo movement. Is this not a reliable source ?https://www.barrons.com/news/chinese-canadian-pop-star-kris-wu-jailed-for-rape-court-document-01669364107 Rita Colmar (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, but aside from that, there is nothing in the main content (that's after the People's involved section) discussing on the effect of the case on the wider society in that manner, therefore would be excluded from the lead regardless. – robertsky (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Rita Colmar (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Kris Wu rape case. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tell me if the following webpages are unsourced content :

https://app.bjtitle.com/8816/newshow.php?newsid=5952586

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4661850409272066

Rita Colmar (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Kris Wu rape case. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia. Would you please tell me if the following webpages are unsourced content :

https://app.bjtitle.com/8816/newshow.php?newsid=5952586

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4661850409272066 Rita Colmar (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Kris Wu rape case. Materialscientist (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia. Would you please tell me which part of my edition is unsourced material ? Rita Colmar (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia. Would you please tell me if the following webpages are unsourced content :

https://app.bjtitle.com/8816/newshow.php?newsid=5952586

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4661850409272066 Rita Colmar (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]

@Materialscientist courtesy ping. – robertsky (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I blocked from editing now ? Please tell me which part I have infringed upon the Wikipedia regulations.

https://app.bjtitle.com/8816/newshow.php?newsid=5952586

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4661850409272066

Sometimes I can't tell which is a reliable source and which is not. Would you please verify for me if the above two are reliable sources ? I thought they are authentic official sources.

Also would you please tell me what's the difference between Edit and Edit Source ?

Regards,

Rita Colmar Rita Colmar (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Colmar, asking and waiting for a response is fine. Continuing to edit in the same way without understanding the problem is not. There are multiple issues with your contributions:

Others have voiced concern about the reliability of the content, so you may not re-add it without having found a consensus on the article's talk page. The relevant policy section is WP:BLPUNDEL.
Others have challenged the verifiability of the material, so the burden is on you to provide reliable references (WP:BURDEN).
Weibo, a social network and publisher of user-generated and self-published content, is not a reliable source. This especially applies to biographical material about living people (WP:BLPSPS).
Whatever "app.bjtitle.com" is, it doesn't even make a remote impression of reliability just from the website's look alone. We're looking for high-quality sources with editorial oversight that are known for their fact-checking and reliability.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content in violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Wu rape case

Recently I was blocked because my citation was considered unsourced and poorly sourced. But the citation I quoted is from the official Weibo account of the Beijing Chaoyang police and is authentic and original . The report is written in Chinese and has been reported in many Chinese newspapers and media over the country. This is the only police report allowed to circulate and is also the only report available to the Chinese people who have no access to any other information. I hereby list the citations again and please verify if they are good enough.

北京市公安局朝阳分局官方微博（@平安北京朝阳）7月22日发布情况通报：

https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2021_07_22_599697.shtml

平安北京朝阳 #情况通报#

https://www.weibo.com/5556545776/KpX0ICU5s

新京报 北京警方通报吴亦凡事件

https://m.bjnews.com.cn/detail/162694394414919.html

北京青年报

https://app.bjtitle.com/8816/newshow.php?newsid=5952586

成都商报

https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_13698203

新浪科技：北京朝阳警方通报吴某凡事件

https://finance.sina.com.cn/tech/2021-07-22/doc-ikqcfnca8429946.shtml

腾讯网

https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20210722A0D3NC00

中国基金报2021-07-23 江苏

https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_13707100

中新经纬

http://news.hexun.com/2021-07-22/204010319.html

中华网China.com

https://news.china.com/social/1007/20210722/39787001.html

每日经济新闻2021-07-31

http://www.nbd.com.cn/articles/2021-07-31/1860015.html

  Rita Colmar (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello, I'm Robertsky. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Kris Wu rape case seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Be careful with how you are translating Chinese articles. The way you have been doing it is introducing bias in the article. – robertsky (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your edition of the chronological events, which makes it easier for the readers to follow. I am so happy to have someone to exchange opinions and discussion on this case.

So far there are only 3 sources of official information: the Beijing Chaoyang Police Statement 21 July 2021, People's Daily 31 July 2021, and the verdict 25 November, 2022. The only translation I did was with the police report of 21July 2021. Please correct any part of it you think is not properly translated.

The audio recording of Du Meizhu's telephone conversation was leaked 3 months before the first trial was held. As it contains a large amount of information previously unknown to the public, it has aroused great interest and concern among those audience who has access to it. However the Chinese authorities banned it without giving any explanation. I think the sound track should not be removed as it provides some missing pieces of information.

On the other hand, I also think that it is not necessary to spell out Du Meizhu's allegations in such details. She did not present any evidence to support her allegations which were echoed by no one and were never verified by any official information. While her fabrications went viral on the net, no one ever heard the other side of the story from Kris Wu as Weibo cancelled 145 platforms once Kris Wu was detained, not even formally arrested.

Please also point out which sources you consider unreliable. I will study these carefully to improve my editing.

Best regards,

Rita Rita Colmar (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On whether she presented evidence or not, that's not for us to decide just based on available information. What are unknown are the court documents and proceedings being closed trials. There may be evidence which backed the allegations. Also to note that one can say that she take ownership of the allegations with her interview with 163.com [1].

As for the paragraph on the audio recording, it is removed because of the sources used. The two sources, allkpop and kbizboom, are deemed unreliable in some quarters, especially the kpop editors. These two sources would run afoul of the general reliability tests anyway being generally either user generated content themselves or poor translations of the original Korean reporting (which runs afoul of the rule of not linking to copyrighted works, even if it is derivative works). You can reintroduce the text, but only if you can find other sources.

For the reliability of sources, you can look at WP:RSP and WP:RSN for a list of sources that were evaluated by the editing community. And since Kris Wu was part of the kpop scene, looking at WP:KO/RS is advisable as well. This is a separate list maintained by a smaller but dedicated group of editors who edit on kpop-related topics.

As for the allegations, the list may require a review, but to say that any of it were not picked up by anyone else, i.e. the news is a stretch. – robertsky (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for enlightening me on the concept of reliability. I then find out that the two sources I quoted belong to the unreliable sources. However, what about sources which are not mentioned on either list ? For Example ?

https://lovekpop95.com/2022/03/06/breaking-recording-that-could-possibly-prove-exo-kris-wus-innocence-was-leaked-on-weibo/

https://lujuba.cc/en/647389.html

https://dramapanda.com/2022/03/alleged-recording-of-kris-wus-accuser-du-meizhu-suggests-she-does-not-have-solid-evidence.html

I do not insist on including the recording in the article. I just don't want to miss a point that there's a leaked audio recording which is banned by the Chinese authorities. If you think that it is not worth mentioning, I have no objection.

A clarification should be made that Du Meizhu's allegations came from her weibo posts where she did not provide any evidence in those posts. And those allegations were not mentioned in any of the 3 official documents.

May I say thank to you once again for your help in the edition which gives a fuller account of the case.

Regards,

Rita Colmar Rita Colmar (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral about lovekpop95.com and dramapanda.com. dp.com about us page indicates that it is a website by one person with contributors submitting content. Since the editorial process is unknown,for lovekpop95.copm, I would say sure.. but better to have other sources, and slight discouragement for using dp.com.

I don't think lujuba.com should be used. It has the hallmarks of being an unreliable source, sone of which are doing machine translations without attributing their sources, which in turn poses an issue with respect to copyright, and not taking responsibility of the words printed/typed there (see the disclaimer in the footer of the website). I would avoid using it as much as possible as a source on Wikipedia.

However, you are in luck as there are other possible sources:

https://entlife.8world.com/e-news/kris-wu-du-mei-zhu-1753356

https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E5%90%B3%E4%BA%A6%E5%87%A1%E6%B2%92%E7%9D%A1%E6%9C%AA%E6%88%90%E5%B9%B4-%E9%83%BD%E7%BE%8E%E7%AB%B9-%E7%A7%81%E4%B8%8B%E9%80%A0%E5%81%87%E9%8C%84%E9%9F%B3%E6%AA%94-%E5%85%A8%E6%9B%9D%E5%85%89-%E9%83%BD-050013566.html

https://www.hk01.com/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82%E5%A8%9B%E6%A8%82/746915/%E5%90%B3%E4%BA%A6%E5%87%A1%E6%B6%89%E5%BC%B7%E5%A7%A6%E9%81%AD%E9%80%AE%E6%8D%957%E5%80%8B%E6%9C%88%E9%A9%9A%E7%88%86%E9%83%BD%E7%BE%8E%E7%AB%B9%E9%80%A0%E5%81%87%E9%8C%84%E9%9F%B3-%E6%B2%92%E8%AD%89%E6%93%9A%E5%8F%AA%E6%98%AF%E5%9A%87%E5%94%AC%E4%BB%96

Allegations need not be present in official documentations to be on Wikipedia. As long as there are sources with the allegations, they can be included on Wikipedia barring an explicit consensus among the editing community indicating otherwise. It is stated clearly on the article here that they are just allegations. See also WP:CENSORSHIP. – robertsky (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot thank you enough for your guidance on how I should improve my writing up for Wikipedia.

But there is one more question: why is only Liao Tiao Tiao's name shown in Chinese but not others ? Can I also include some other names in Chinese ?

It is so nice to exchange views with you and thank you so much for taking the trouble to explain everything to me in such detail.

Regards,

Rita Rita Colmar (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can use add the Chinese names next to the pinyin, to aid comprehension. – robertsky (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Robertsky,

There are 2 points about this article that I would like to ask for your opinions.

The first verdict stated that there were 3 victims. But the second verdict changed it into many victims. It appears unusual that the second trial should alter the judgement of the first trial as it makes a lot of difference between 3 and many. I am not sure if this change is in line with the Chinese judicial system. Anyway I am thinking of bringing up this point with a legal point of view in mind.

Next is about Kris Wu' mother's letter. Soon after the second verdict was announced she published a statement under the Weibo account of the company which she co-owns with Kris cousin. She exposed some information which was not known to the public before. The letter immediately aroused public attention but it was deleted 30 minutes after it was posted. Do you think it is appropriate for me to mention this episode as the authorities have been active deleting articles, blocking accounts, cancelling posts and evading questions raised by netizens concerning this case ?

Best regards,

Rita Colmar Rita Colmar (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 is a crowd. we don't interpret the verdict nor make judgements here on wikipedia.

only if the letter and deletion was reported. – robertsky (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Robertsky,

If allegations are allowed to stay in the article, why is official information not allowed to be published ?

Those allegations were not mentioned or supported in any Chinese official documents.

My statement of the above fact has been deleted 3 times. It is a fact, why not allowed ?

Best Regards,

Rita Colmar Rita Colmar (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because you are interpreting the official documents. we don't do that here on wikipedia, but only write what is written in other third-party sources. i noticed that you have been leaving me messages here. but I don't monitor this page. If you wish to reach out to me, or any users, use the reply to template, i.e. {{re|Example user}} which with send a notification through the system. – robertsky (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welll I have been told that information from personal weibo is not a reliable source but I have found that such personal information has been used a number of times in this article. So I thought the police report is a reliable source. I did not add my interpretation to it. The police did not deny or approve those allegations. It just did not mention or confirm those allegations. Isn't this a fact ? If you think my wording in presentation is not accurate, I should be most grateful if you could kindly edit it to meet the standard of wikipedia. Rita Colmar (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information from weibo were reported on by other publications. Were these reports reported on by the other publications? – robertsky (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Du Meizhu's allegation No.5 was reported differently by the Beijing Chaoyang police report of 21 July 2022, which is an official document. Can this point be included in this article ? Or must leave her allegation intact ?

Also can I supply more information by citing from the article titled "The Rise and Fall of a Chinese-Canadian Pop Star" by Yvonne Lau published in Mcleans's on 18 September 2023. ? This is a Canadian publication.

Thank you again for your guidance. Regards, Rita Colmar (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to continue the discussion at Talk:Kris Wu rape case as there are other editors interested in editing the article. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Robertsky,

Du Meizhu's allegation No.5 was reported differently by the Beijing Chaoyang police report of 21 July 2022. This is an official document. Can this point be mentioned ? Or must her allegations remain intact ?

"The Rise and Fall of a Chinese-Canadian Pop Star" by Yvonne Lau published in Mcleans's on 18 September 2023 is a Canadian publication. Is this a reliable source ? Can this be cited ?

Regards,

Rita Colmar

Rita Colmar (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I don't know where to find the talk page. There I saw this message:

Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title. Note that the corresponding article Kris wu rape case also does not exist.

I am confused. Would you please direct me to this page ?

Cheers ! Rita Colmar (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]