Talk:Kelly Marie Tran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kelly Tran's Harassment

So far there has been little evidence of Tran being harassed aside from one tweet that wasn't even from her. I suggest that the segments about Tran's harassment be removed until more evidence is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.189.224 (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If I'm to assume good faith then I must conclude that you have no idea what a citation is. So please read the paragraph you take umbrage with, and click on the numbers in brackets, then follow the links to the sources. Good luck. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How condescending. If someone were to deface, let's say, Jake Lloyd's page and make derogatory comments, would it be used as evidence of a large scale harassment campaign to deflect from the negative criticisms of The Phantom Menace? (Spoiler: It has been defaced but we saw zero articles about it) Because that's all the evidence that there is beyond a couple of tweets, and editors cannot possibly in good faith try to connect a Wookieepedia page and a smattering of individuals on Twitter to her deleting her Instagram pictures. They should have evidence that a large body of people were making racist remarks on her photos to draw that conclusion, but that evidence doesn't exist because it never happened.Rzrmanifest (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rzrmanifest: You claim there's no evidence. But as a Wikipedian, the only evidence you need is reliable secondary sources, and they're right there in the article. Please review the rules/guidelines on WP:RS and WP:OR. --ChiveFungi (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi:Willingness to push a narrative with no proof? Man, Wikipedia is fucked. Very well, continue on in your disinformation campaign. Rzrmanifest (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "fucked" just because you don't understand how it works. There's even an essay about that: WP:NOTTRUTH. clpo13_(talk) 19:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's instead fucked cause you just can claim something as truth with non-reliable source that have no facts whatsoever to back up their opinion but cause it's a source that somehow makes it a fact by itself. That's how objectivity dies. 31.130.136.31 (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have found some evidence on Wookieepedia of people who hate Tran. Looking through the revision history of the Rose Tico page you can find an extremely racist page that makes fun of the Chinese. -- 68.0.189.224 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It goes without saying that any form of harassment is deplorable. But it should be noted that Kelly Marie Tran's account in the New York Times, Reference (1), while undoubtedly genuine, has clearly been taken out of context. She makes no mention of being harassed on social media or deleting her Instagram account. The implication that is what Ms Tran is referring to comes only from the article's title and Editor's note, neither of which she is responsible for. Her words have been repurposed, as the text is taken almost word-for-word from a post taken from her now-deleted Instagram account, made in 2017 before the release of The Last Jedi. This post allegedly referred to her treatment by the media when she began her acting career. Make of that what you will.User:Huffy1968 (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Hi. Could you explain why you removed the image from the infobox? As far as I can tell the image meets the non-free content criteria. Thanks --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-free images of living individuals almost always fail WP:NFCC#1 because a free equivalent could be created. CIreland (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)