Talk:Margaret Chin

DYI Nomination

Hong, how do we get this nominated for Did You Know? MMetro (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Check here for selection criteria: Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Selection_criteria. And if you think it qualifies, then nominate here: T:TDYK#How_to_list_a_new_nomination. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Chin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jhfortier (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose could use some work to improve the overall flow, as there are some awkward sentences.

1. I've done some updating to clarify sentences and re-organize the article a bit, to make it easier to expand this article (as her term(s) in office progress).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article overall just doesn't feel balanced. No mention of criticisms of her policies, no campaign issues, opponent attacks, or controversial views.

She has only been in office for a month, so there isn't much media coverage of what she has done. There are probably specific details I can include of her run for office in terms of how her opponents might have attacked her. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Further research on this sunject has confirmed that as a newly-minted politician, few controversial events or decisions have been reported. As her term progresses, I'm sure more information will be added by User:HongQiGong and others, who seem to update this page reliably and as neutrally as possible.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   It would be nice to have an image or two, although not completely necessary. There must be a free-use image of Ms. Chin available.

I have tried very hard to find free images of her without success. As you may be aware, the restrictions of what images can be uploaded has become increasingly strict, especially for living persons. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. Pass. This article is sufficiently detailed to cover available information about Ms. Chin. As her terms progress, no doubt the article will expand, but for now it meets GA criteria. Congratulations to the contributing editors.

Thanks! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Communist ties in her past

She used to be in the Maoist Communist Workers' Party.

http://www.city-journal.org/article02.php?aid=1606

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1593 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.157.71 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

While you have anonymously cited 2 articles, they both stem from notably right-wing news sources The New American and City Journal (New York). If you wish to amend the article to include this information, you would be best to find reliable and unbiased sources of this information, such as non-partisan newspapers or media outlets. Given that this is the biography of a living person, special stringency is required when reviewing the sources to ensure that they conform to the requirements of Wikipedia's biographies of living people policies. Jhfortier (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"*** Both Rocky Chin and Margaret Chin are members of the Asian American generation that came of age politically in the 1970s. Rocky Chin was close to the Maoist I Wor Kuen, Margaret Chin a member of the Communist Workers Party. Both groups once had a substantial presence in Chinatown.***"

(The Village Voice is not traditionally considered conservative though some of its owners have been. Wikipedia again shows it has rules regulations and policies which have not bearing on reality of things except where it allows the established order most often what they like while Wikipedia has no spine nor integrity congrats on being academic bureaucrats of the ivory tower cases of PC internet servers. Is Wikipedia better than Wikileaks not they are two sides of the same coin. Margaret Chin run for the New York City Council three times she was thoroughly reported and discussed as was her CWP association, she was commonly thought of as a publicly known CWP member, she has never denied it. Rather than have the Wikipedia 20 something zealots forcing people to prove things on these ridiculous standards why don't you disprove it by merely citing one valid denial from her that she was a member? because there is none this is not a McCarthyite witch hunt but in that she has had her biography cleansed in the eyes of the article Wikipedia present it is highly distorted and historically revisionist. P.S. This actually is a reason why people should be allowed some latitude to write or confirm articles on themselves rather than cloud the issues and to create contention as the Wikipedia organization does. Xaoskeller (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Margaret Chin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090525134031/http://www.anhd.org:80/about/about.html to http://www.anhd.org/about/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Where less Americans live

Those are the zones were less American people live and their presence is less stabilized. Or were they vanish more easily, if you so wish.