Talk:Maggie Mac Neil

Regarding addition of "Chinese reaction"

Talk to aoi has been removing sourced content and replacing it with "Jiujiang News Network reported she had won gold medal in Tokyo 2020 Olympics. Some viewers commented even though she is a Canadian citizen, her birthplace is still happy for her", which is sourced to a comments in a TikTok video. Talk to aoi, can you explain what is wrong with the statement sourced to South China Morning Post and how you believe the comments on a TikTok video are reliable sources? Paging Krazytea as well, since they were also involved in reverts. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 15:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The repeated reinstatements by the user (beginning with this, and repeated here, here, here, here, here, and here) appear to break the WP:3RR rule. As explained previously, it's on the editor seeking to add disputed content to gain consensus before adding it (per WP:ONUS). Response from her birthplace might be short-term interesting as a news story about a recent sporting achievement, but is not notable in the medium- or long-term and therefore fails WP:10YT. And there is consensus against including it; countless editors have removed the content presumably as it sticks out like a sore thumb. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning of birth place is already added in terms of her birth place in infobox and personal life, there is no other reason to add empty fluff to the articel as is being done by Talk to aoi. If it was actually notable, or something like a large watch party that took place in her hometown and was properly sourced, that may be relevant. But most of this stuff is coming from fluff articles or propaganda papers like South China Morning Post, which leads me to believe there is not any notability for the inclusion here. Krazytea(talk) 17:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

On the next revert by Talk to aoi they will be reported unless they can work collaboratively with other editors. The 3 revert rule has long since been violated. Krazytea(talk) 17:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeeno and Krazytea

Personal attacks regarding content added by WP:NOTHERE user

The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

Yeeno mentioned can you explain what is wrong with teh statement sourced to South China Morning Post?

Krazyttea mentioned most of this stuff is coming form fluff articles or propaganda papers like South China Morning Post?"

The two contradicts each other

Yeeno claims subject's birthplace is irrelevant to the subject sourced from the propaganda paper South China Morning Post. The source is unreliable and hence the claim should be deleted.

Yeeno seems hold bias against the subject's birthplace

Thousands have left comments in Jiujiang News Network. Its real. Jiujiang News Network is a local media in the subject's birthplace. I don't see the reason to exclude the report from this media of the the subject

Yeeno seems hold a strong bias against China. Any content related to the subject's birthplace has been actively removed by Yeeno

---

I do not think there is any point in posting the details about the swimmer's ethnic origins as a result of her adoption in a different country. Her birthplace is acknowledged in the infobox and her personal section. If the swimmer believes her ethnic origins are irrelevant it should not be included in the page. It would only build towards an ethnic conflict on her page. Let the swimmer swim and her competition speak for the page. Unless she discusses her ethnicity more publicly this only builds WP:Controversy that would lead to edit warring. No need to include as neutrality should be observed. Krazytea(talk) 21:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I just want start off to say my opposition to Talk to aoi's edits are not driven by any sort of "anti-China bias", but rather by Wikipedia's policies of reliable sourcing and no original research. The edits are sourced to a seconds long TikTok video from a Chinese news organization, which gives no information other than Mac Neil winning her gold medal. The assertion that commenters were "proud" or what not would have been sourced from the comments on the video, which are not reliable sources, and looking for such comments would constitute original research. Basically, the organization is reliable, but the comments are not. If the reaction of Chinese netizens is notable enough to mention, it would be covered in a reliable source such as the SCMP article (more on that below).

@Krazytea: With regards to my inclusion of her comments about heritage, sourced to SCMP (which has been considered a reliable source despite its ownership by Alibaba, see WP:SCMP), I believe the comments would be better than nothing for a reader looking to find her perspective on things. While, I understand this is a virtual non-issue outside China, it is better than having nothing and leaving things up for interpretation. If others disagree though, I'm fine with leaving it out for now. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 22:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

---

@Krazytea::@Yeeno:The claim that subject believes the subject's ethnic origins is irrelevant is sourced from South China Morning Post. It is not a totally reliable source, and put such claim in the subject's article can cause hostility between the subject and country of the subject's birth

By citing the subject cries out about the country of the subject's birth, the subject may be treated as hostile by the country. This is not good for the subject

By citing the subject cries out about the country of the subject's birth, may promote hatred among readers to the subject's birth country

The Jiujiang News Network title clearly shows the subject's birthplace is proud for the subject. Thousands left comments and it is real.

I don't see any points of removing expression of real emotions of people from the subject's birthplace

---

@Krazytea: Krazytea, if you keep failing address question on Talk Page, you may be reported

Please don't add content may cause hostility between subject and country of the subject's birth

Please don't promote hatred between readers to the country of the subject's birth

I don't see the point of remove the local media coverage of the subject, and remove the real emotions expressions from people of the subject's birthplace.

This part of the subject's life should be added as well as other parts of the subject's life

Please don't put bias or your apparent anti China into article

Please note that User:Talk to aoi has been blocked for 30 hours due to edit warring. Hopefully they can work more collaboratively after the block. Krazytea(talk) 02:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

one child policy

I see Talk to aoi's point. Why does this belong in this BLP? It has nothing to do with her or her personal life, and it's arguably undue and recentism here. Adding it to One-child policy would be reasonable, but I'm a little uncomfortable with adding it here. But Talk to aoi, please don't call this anti-Chinese bias; that's a personal attack and it's assuming bad faith. This looks to me simply like the typical rush to add everything in the news, no matter how trivial, into an article. —valereee (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I was just going to warn Talk to aoi about edit-warring, but see they've been indef blocked. I've seen this article light up my watchlist in the past few days. Prehaps everyone can take a few extra seconds before hitting submit and/or revert. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Canterbury Tail, care to discuss? :D —valereee (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Points here are valid. I was just reverting an edit warrior throwing around personal attacks. Feel free to move to a new section or remove as appropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 19:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is remove. Since there's been edit-warring, I'd like to get other opinions first. —valereee (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I only reverted because the removal was done in a non-neutral blp violating (calling them anti chinese hater with no source) manner. Pinging editors who have previously edited the article @Krazytea, Cougroyalty, and Yeeno:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear: I don't think this is anti-Chinese. I just think it's undue, recentism, and likely won't pass the 10-year test, so not good for a BLP. —valereee (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Partially reiterating what I said above (since it's swamped in a bunch of attacks and nonsense), I think we should at least include the subject's own comments on her identity in the Personal life section. Although the subject considers her Chinese origin as "a very small part of my journey to where I am today", and "kind of irrelevant when it comes to swimming" (quoted from a press conference), this statement is, in my opinion, worth including to remove any ambiguity surrounding this issue. This would be kind of like what we have for Naomi Osaka#Personal life, where there is a quote of Osaka describing her identity. Let me know what you all think. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is a tiny little very recent thing that likely won't be mentioned by anyone a few weeks from now. I just don't think it's important, and we need to be very careful with undue at BLPs. If it's still being mentioned in a few years, fine, we mention it too. —valereee (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Margaret Macneil JO Tokyo 2020.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)