Post Reply People are trying to remove Peter Wang's wikipedia entry
24044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 2/26/18 , edited 2/26/18
This kid put his life on the line to save the lives of other kids in the school. As a result he was shot and killed. In honor of him he got his own Wikipedia entry but now people want to remove a wikipedia entry honoring his sacrifice. I don't understand why you wouldn't let this 14 year old kid have his own page when he sacrificed his life to save others. It seems to me this kid deserves it because he wouldn't have died had he abandoned his fellow school mates.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wang_(cadet)

Archive: http://archive.is/zIoKX



Peter Wang (Chinese: 王孟杰; pinyin: Wáng Mèngjié; November 9, 2002 – February 14, 2018) was an American Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) cadet and high school student who was killed during the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on February 14, 2018.[2] Wang was born in Brooklyn and raised in Broward County, Florida, and was a freshman at the time of his death. During the shooting, Wang helped students escape the gunfire by holding an exit door open and pushing victims out.[3] For his actions, Wang was posthumously awarded the ROTC Medal for Heroism and admitted to West Point—a very rare act granted to potential candidates whose actions exemplified the tenets promoted by the academy.[4]




Meanwhile someone else who survived and is being used to push gun control has no debate on keeping their wikipedia entry: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Gonz%C3%A1lez

So we delete heroes who should be plastered everywhere and promote people who have done nothing. I think things are being done backwards.
17061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/26/18 , edited 2/27/18
So they think the kid isn't notable enough to "deserve" his own encyclopedia entry.
runec 
41450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/26/18 , edited 2/27/18
Before this ragebait of a topic gets in full swing its important to understand what's actually going on here.



gornotck wrote:
So they think the kid isn't notable enough to "deserve" his own encyclopedia entry.


From the wiki guidelines:


A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.



Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.


IE, by the guidelines, the details of Peter Wang's actions should normally be under the article for the Parkland Shooting. He does not meet notability guidelines for a separate article. That is in no way a negative reflection on his heroics it's just the guidelines for Wikipedia and how it's curated. If you don't understand why they won't let him have his own page it's because you don't understand what Wikipedia is and isn't in the first place. This isn't Wikipedia coming down on high to delete the page of some poor kid. It's a discussion on whether a page fits the proper guidelines for curating Wikipedia.

For the record, the details of his heroic actions ARE under the Parkland Shooting article alongside the heroic actions of 5 others. 2 of whom received the same medal posthumously as Wang did. He is the only victim and only person who performed heroically that has his own Wikipedia page.
3443 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/26/18 , edited 2/27/18
Just from eyeballing the Emma Gonz page, she likely has a page due to her activist activities.

That said, this is a silly thread.
runec 
41450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/26/18 , edited 2/27/18

gornotck wrote:
All I said was that the editors, not "Wikipedia" whatever that may actually mean, thought that this Wang kid wasn't notable, even though he received recognition from various organizations for his actions. It is balanced, perhaps, by the second link Ryujin added about the "activist" related to that event who basically is not notable in any way, but isn't having her page pressured to be deleted.


Right, and Wikipedia is allowing a full discussion on the subject. Many people have performed heroic actions in the face of danger but they do not get their own Wikipedia articles. Because that doesn't usually meet the guidelines. If Wang meets the guidelines then do we go back and add individual pages for every victim of a crime that did something heroic? If Wang has a page, then why not the other two that received the same accolades he did? Why not the coach? Do we now go back over every shooting and major crime and give every heroic victim a Wikipedia page?

When faced with that sort of Pandora's Box I can see why they would bring this to discussion.

As for balance, despite what Ruji thinks this isn't a matter of balance because Wang and González are not having an argument with each other.



gornotck wrote:
Wikipedia is shit. Wikipedia's "editors" are shit. Wikipedia's articles basically amount to shit. It is not, and will never be, a serious forum for factual information of any source or sort. There is no "on high" for "Wikipedia" to descend from, for any action, because as Wikipedia itself contains, Wikipedia entirely lacks accountability despite its pretentions.


Your opinion on Wikipedia itself is noted but not really relevant to the topic to be honest. No offense.



gornotck wrote:
Do not ever try to dictate to anyone what they do or do not understand.


That was directed at Ruji who literally stated he didn't understand when he could have easily clicked the discussion on the article and understood what was happening. Which is a common issue with his topics. Outrage first. Actual information and context later. So I'm sorry if it seemed like it was directed at you, That wasn't my intention.

199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
108 / O
Offline
Posted 2/26/18 , edited 2/27/18

runec wrote:


gornotck wrote:
All I said was that the editors, not "Wikipedia" whatever that may actually mean, thought that this Wang kid wasn't notable, even though he received recognition from various organizations for his actions. It is balanced, perhaps, by the second link Ryujin added about the "activist" related to that event who basically is not notable in any way, but isn't having her page pressured to be deleted.


Right, and Wikipedia is allowing a full discussion on the subject. Many people have performed heroic actions in the face of danger but they do not get their own Wikipedia articles. Because that doesn't usually meet the guidelines. If Wang meets the guidelines then do we go back and add individual pages for every victim of a crime that did something heroic? If Wang has a page, then why not the other two that received the same accolades he did? Why not the coach? Do we now go back over every shooting and major crime and give every heroic victim a Wikipedia page?

When faced with that sort of Pandora's Box I can see why they would bring this to discussion.

As for balance, despite what Ruji thinks this isn't a matter of balance because Wang and González are not having an argument with each other.



gornotck wrote:
Wikipedia is shit. Wikipedia's "editors" are shit. Wikipedia's articles basically amount to shit. It is not, and will never be, a serious forum for factual information of any source or sort. There is no "on high" for "Wikipedia" to descend from, for any action, because as Wikipedia itself contains, Wikipedia entirely lacks accountability despite its pretentions.


Your opinion on Wikipedia itself is noted but not really relevant to the topic to be honest. No offense.



gornotck wrote:
Do not ever try to dictate to anyone what they do or do not understand.


That was directed at Ruji who literally stated he didn't understand when he could have easily clicked the discussion on the article and understood what was happening. Which is a common issue with his topics. Outrage first. Actual information and context later. So I'm sorry if it seemed like it was directed at you, That wasn't my intention.




Hmmm the stuff you quoted was deleted by the mods?
Dragon
69457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/27/18 , edited 2/27/18

runec wrote:


zefur wrote:
Hmmm the stuff you quoted was deleted by the mods?


Hrm. You can delete your own post as well but I don't know why that would have happened either?




Quick glance, didn't look like it was deleted by mods, but it could've been a server hiccup or something as well, or a self delete. Who knows.

On topic, .. I'm not really sure why this is a topic. Wikipedia's standards are their own, and it seems like folks who contribute there get to suggest/vote on articles for deletion, and that happens all the time on all sorts of articles. Some folks feel there should be a separate article for Peter, others (even the creator from what I read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Wang_(cadet)) are neutral, or suggest merging it with the main shooting article due to it being a notable event related to the shooting, but not necessarily something that should have its own.

I suppose anyone who is that invested in Wikipedia could join up, work to become someone who has the power to suggest article deletions, and go on to suggest deletion for whatever they want.
runec 
41450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/26/18 , edited 2/27/18

zefur wrote:
Hmmm the stuff you quoted was deleted by the mods?


Hrm. You can delete your own post as well but I don't know why that would have happened either?


1544 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/1/18 , edited 3/2/18
For once I'm with runec. Obviously he deserves recognition of some kind, but that's not what wikipedia is for. He connects to exactly one notable event: the shooting. Everything about him that belongs on wikipedia can be, and has been, written on the page about the shooting. On the other hand, if he is buried with full military honors as some have pushed for, that might change things. I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing for a JROTC cadet.
Humms 
14081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / CAN, ON
Online
Posted 3/2/18 , edited 3/2/18
Oh... Wikipedia

Alright then.
37920 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/2/18 , edited 3/2/18
Sounds like Wikipedia is being reasonable enough. It's a little disgusting some people are using this kid's death to push their political opinions.

These threads are always the same for me. First, I read something that seems shocking or outrageous. Then I see who the poster is and think, "this is probably bullshit". Then I spend half a minute looking for context and realize, "yep, bullshit". Every time.
You must be logged in to post.