Talk:Mun Charn Wong

Verify source

RightCowLeftCoast added a {{verify source}} tag and wrote: "request verification from third party that source exist."[1] This is not how the tag is used. The way that the tag is used is in regards to content that is "doubtful or false". Since we have another source before it giving credence to the claim, I would like to know why RCLC thinks this information is doubtful or false. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the information supported by alleged reference is accurate and whether said reference exist at all, not the information supported by the first reference. I do not find the content harmful, and thus the reason for the tag.

If I had questioned the content of the first reference I would have tagged that appropriately as well. If the entire content of the section is supported by the first reference, it should be shown to be refrenced as such.

Therefore I asked for verification of the source by a third party in the edit summary, rather than beginning the first steps of an edit war. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. In what way do you "doubt" the information is supported and in what way do you doubt the reference exists? Your nomination of this article for deletion is one thing, but your continued editing here is becoming problematic. You need to say why you doubt the information and you need to state why you doubt the reference exists. Are you actually claiming that I invented the information and created a reference where none exist? If so, this is a very serious charge, and I request you find an administrator immediately and report me. Otherwise, I request that you leave this article alone. You have also failed to remove the search term links from the book refs after I explained the problem to you on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you are not assuming good faith regarding my edits, whereas I see that you are doing your best to add refrences to the article to prove notability, which is commendable. However, I doubt the list of notable individuals that the source that you claim to exist supports.

On a related note, being related to someone notable does not make the subject of this article notable. See WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith about your desire to delete this article at all costs, including adding inappropriate tags and links. However, you need to know how these things work and listen to other editors. I have addressed some of this issues with you on your talk page, with little to no response about them, and in one case, you ignored me until I repeated my request twice. As for "being related to someone notable", I have no idea what you are talking about. Randy Wong's notability is not meant to confer such on Mun Charn Wong, but rather to illustrate his personal life. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the first reference in said section does not validate/verify the list of persons provided from the alleged second reference which I am calling into question. It only states "Wong could list quite a few accomplishments as a football player and golfer who played with PGA celebrities." The reference doesn't list the individuals whom the subject played golf with. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But the reference I added does. Have you tried to check it? If you are unable to do so, I suggest you read WP:V, because it will give you instructions on how to use this talk page effectively. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to check the reference provided, and as per WP:V sources need not be accessable online, I understand that. However, when I did attempt to check for the source offline, I could not verify that the source existed. Therefore, as my edit summary stated, I was looking for a third party to verify that the source actually exist.

Viriditas, I don't believe that you believe my edits are constructive, due to the fact that I nominated the article for deletion. Please understand that I nominated it for deletion because as it was written it didn't meet notability. Furthermore, I continue to believe, even thought you are doing some wonderful work, that the subject of the article does not meet notability. If my edits, weren't in good faith, I would be deleting your edits completely, and begin an Edit War. As you can clearly see, I am not doing that.

So far, from where I sit, you are doing everything you can to save this article. This includes this discussion which due to what appears to be your lack of good faith may devolve into an arguement, which is something that I don't think either of us wants. Perhaps as I have suggested we should seek a third opinion regarding the matter? Or as an alternative we could both cool down by taking a break on editting this article, supporting our opposing opinions in the afd, and come back to this after other editors/users have come to a decision on the afd. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confused about Wikipedia and how the research process works. If you can't find the article online, then that means nothing. As I previously explained to you on your talk page, most of the sources regarding Wong are offline. Again, you seem to be ignoring my comments to you and then returning to the same theme. In any case, it took me five minutes to find the article in question online contained within the NewsBank newspaper index, record number 231570. But that doesn't solve your problem. If you actually had a problem with the source material, what you are supposed to do is explain the problem and request that the source holder provide a sample of the quoted text. This is a basic citation request, which most seasoned editors are familiar with doing on the talk page. I can't see what a third opinion would offer, as I am merely improving and expanding an encyclopedia article. Perhaps you should try it sometime. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil in your tone, and stop talking down to me.

Which inappropriate links and templates are you talking about? The mix up between links as an honest good faith mistake, one which I admitted to, after review. Furthermore, the supposed inappropriate template is the one we're discussing now, is it not? Therefore this discussion only illustrates how I have listened to you, in your good faith effort to save the article.

As I had said, I understand that one need not find a source online, in order for it to be considered a verifiable reliable source; again, I direct you to WP:SOURCEACCESS on that point. To repeat what I had said, I have attempted to find the article that was tagged at the beginning of this discussion, which you started after you removed it, off line, and have been so far been unable to find it. Therefore I tagged it as appropriate, and have asked for verification that it exist.

I don't believe it is inappropriate for me to ask for a third party verification regarding the validity of the alleged article. You have claimed that it exist, I have been unable to validate said claim. If we continue just you and I to support our own claims regarding the existence of the article it will go no where. However, if a third party verifies your claim, it would answer my question regarding the article's existance, and the tag (that in my humble opinion should have remained while we discuss it, as it was not harmful to the article) would be removed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are being disruptive again. You were provided with the article ID number of the database record of the source, allowing anyone to look at it. If you don't know how to do proper research then there are several noticeboards you can visit that can help you, including the refdesk. I also offered you, per verification policies, access to the text on this page. Those are the only two things needed for verification. I explained this to you in my previous message, but you either didn't read it or you did not understand it. Your campaign to delete this article should stay on the AfD page, otherwise your nomination appears to be made in bad faith. As the edit history shows, this article has already undergone deletion and was restored in deletion review. Your continuing behavior here appears POINTY and unbecomng of an editor interested in improving Wikipedia. Because you have admitted a bias against this topic and do not understand how to perform proper research, I would ask that you stay away from here until the conclusion of the AfD. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Two editors have a dispute regarding the appropriate use of a template, as well as the existence of a cited article):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Mun Charn Wong and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

With regards to the use of the verify source template, it should apply to text "which appears doubtful or false". "Appears" is subjective and the guidance goes on to reiterate WP:assume good faith policy. In this case the information can be considered "not too harmful" and the initial action of adding this tag and asking for verification is within this guidance. It would be reasonable to keep this tag in the article whilst consensus on the matter has not been achieved on the talk page, if only to make readers aware of the discussion. The information itself has not been removed and, in this case, need not be removed whilst under discussion. As for the existence of the article, due to the year of this print of the SF Chronicle, I believe the text is not available on-line and verification would have to be by checking an archive of the paper source. I recommend a request is raised on WP:LIB for another party to do exactly that (based in London I don't have any easy access to such a library). I recognize that the person adding the information is effectively verifying the source, however given the context of an ongoing AfD and the fact that the information itself was not removed (diff), it seems reasonable to ask for another party to check the wording in the source without it being considered a complete failure of WP:AGF.—Ash (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment. The verify source tag is used to verify information that seems doubtful or false. There is no indication either is true, and we have another source pointing to the incident in question. The latter is linked in the article, the former is in my possession and I've pointed the other editor to the source and database where it can be found, and I've offered to post the original text here on this page. There is no known reason to add the verify source tag back into this article. So, I will not be supporting the addition of the tag, since it is not used in this way. The user who added the tag did so for no reason, and when he was asked for one, failed to provide it. The user also happens to be the same editor who nominated this article for deletion, and should not be attempting to alter the outcome of that discussion by adding unnecessary tags to this article. Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that a {{verify source}} tag would influence the AfD. I suggest you apply one of the other WP:DR processes if you feel WP:3O has not been sufficient on this occasion. I see no reason to withdraw my opinion.—Ash (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not only insufficient, it's wrong. I note your error about the text "not available on-line". You need to read the discussion again. I explained that the text is available on-line, however you need to be able to access the NewsBank newspaper index, record number 231570. This index is available on-line to anyone with research capabilities through their university or library. It is not, I repeat, not only available by checking a paper source. I made this clear before, but you evidently ignored it. The way the verification process works is that 1) the editor who adds the tag provides a reason on the talk page 2) the responding editor offers to post the original text from the source in question on the talk page, and 3) tell others where to find it. I've have done both 2 and 3, but the editor who added the original tag has not complied with 1. Now, I realize that this editor has not been here very long (since Feb. I believe) and may not be familiar with every process, but I've been through this enough times to know how it works. If the editor will not post a reasonable objection or accept a copy of the original text from the source on the page, or make an effort to look at the archived article on-line, then there is nothing I nor anyone else can do, so there is no justification for the use of the tag. Viriditas (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps my statement "I believe the text is not available on-line" could change to "I believe the text is not easily available on-line". You will note my use of the word "believe" so stating that my opinion "is wrong" in this regard appears inflammatory language to me and I am even less inclined to revise my opinion based on such comments.

I checked online before posting my opinion but do not have access to NewsBank but do to LexisNexis (I have University access as a researcher) which does not appear to index the SFC back that far. I also checked the SFC website which has archive searches available back as afar at 1995. My recommendation that a note on WP:LIB would resolve the issue still looks reasonable as another editor with NewsBank access could check the facts easily if your information is correct.

I do not agree with your summary of how the verify source template is to be used, these are constraints for use that have no consensus. You are free to improve the template itself if you think the guidance there is insufficient.

Again, considering that an AfD is in progress on an article that you have made the majority of edits on, I do not consider an editor requesting independent verification unreasonable.

If you wish to keep challenging me, please expect at least 24 hours or longer before any response as I have little desire to be drawn into argument.—Ash (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here from the article alerts posting on the WP:HAWAII project page, and I have changed very little content. All I have done is respond to the concerns raised at the AfD and the maintenance tags that were added. The majority of my edits involve fulfilling the requests made: 1) adding citations 2) demonstrating notability, and 3) expanding the article. After performing the requested tasks, RightCowLeftCoast added a verify source tag to a piece of information already supported by this reference that was in the article: "Wong could list quite a few accomplishments as a football player and golfer who played with PGA celebrities." I then further illustrated this fact with another source, adding that he had played and won the 87 U.S. Open Preview Pro Am golf tournament. How can this possibly be perceived as "dubious" or "false", and why does it require a verify source tag? Please answer that question. I have offered the exact record number ID to the source article in the newspaper index, and I have give a full source citation, and I have offered the specific text for review on this talk page. Nothing else is required. The user, is of course, free to pursue this on the refdesk or any other resource exchange, but this questioning of a fact that is already verified in the link above is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What was in question is not the fact that he played in said golf event, but whom he played with and the alleged source that verifies those individuals. The content was not harmful to the article, so it was not removed, as per the instructions regarding the template; however, the references itself is what was called into question, and thus the tag.

As for your responses, I implore you to please be civil with the third opinion editor. I asked for a third opinion to bring a neutral, non-involved editor to the page, who can give a fresh look as to the discussion we have here. Your tone, as Ash has commented on, is not something that is productive to the discussion. I understand you intentions mean well... --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

For verification purposes, all that is required is for me to reproduce the text for you from the source. I have repeatedly asked you if you need me to do that, with no response. I've also asked you why, and now, in your above message, you say that the source is "alleged" and question who he played with. Again, I ask you, why is this source in question, why is the text that I'm prepared to share with you "not good enough" and why does it require verification? I'm familiar with how the template is used, and this isn't the way we use it. To repeat myself again, I am ready and willing to share the text with you. But tell me why you question it. Looking above at our initial discussion, you said, "I doubt the list of notable individuals that the source that you claim to exist supports." No offense, but that doesn't give me a reason for your doubt. Are you saying that I made it up? You still haven't given me an answer. Is my wording confusing? What part of it are you doubting? Please let me know so I can fix it. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

First let me say, thank you for your response.

As for the word alleged, as you can see I have used it prior to my last comment, due to (as I have stated before) my efforts in attempting to verify the articles existance independently, and having failed to do so. Therefore, from where I stand the reference has failed verification, as it does not exist. However, assuming good faith, I believe that you may have actually found said article, therefore I have asked for a third party to verify the article exist. You posting the text of the alleged article does not change the fact that, as far as I have been able to determine, the article doesn't actially exist.

Thus, the central point where we disagree with is the existance of the article used as reference, and a third party verification will validate the existance or non existance of the article. If my findings are proven wrong, I am more then willing to conceed the fact that I was wrong; I hope that you are just as willing to conceed the fact that you are wrong if a third party says that the article does not exist. We are people, and are falliable, and thus can be wrong, nothing wrong with that. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not how the verification process works. I would hope by now that you would follow the policies and guidelines on the matter. If you are unable to verify that a source exists, you may ask the editor who has added it to cite the full reference on the talk page, and if you question the content, you may ask for a partial quote. So, you appear to be hung up on not being able to find the source for yourself, even though I have given you the precise place where to find it, including its record number. So, what you need to do is either find a way to question the content, ask me to post some of it here for you to review, or look for the source yourself in the NewsBank database. That is how source verification works on Wikipedia. If you can't do these things, then you need to drop this matter entirely on this article, and take it to another forum, such as the refdesk or the resource exchange. If this isn't clear, then please read WP:V again, paying close attention to footnote 1. Just because you yourself cannot find a source, does not require that you add a tag to this article, or any article. There are literally thousands of sources on Wikipedia that you and I do not have access to, because editors have performed basic research in libraries and search indexes that are available on a subscription basis or are obscure and hidden on a dusty shelf somewhere. If I want to verify any of those sources, I either need to make an attempt in the real world, or ask questions about the citation and content on the talk page. We do not add tags to the article unless we are concerned, and have good reason to be concerned about the source itself. For this reason, I ask that you drop this here, and pursue it in the appropriate place. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mun Charn Wong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622053151/http://www.pacificaerospace.org/history.html to http://www.pacificaerospace.org/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923185309/http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/search/controller/collection/examiner-m1663.html to http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/search/controller/collection/examiner-m1663.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)