Jump to content

Talk:Naomi Wu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.171.239.84 (talk) at 03:28, 7 April 2018 (revert self: breaks formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Close connection and notability

Regarding the close connection and notability templates, Naomi Wu is only one of the 1,434 tweeps whom I follow, and neither Forbes nor Asia Times are chopped liver. kencf0618 (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Wu is also one of the tweeps I follow. I assume that Newsweek is a good source for her notability? http://www.newsweek.com/naomi-wu-sexy-cyborg-misogyny-silicon-valley-704372 HouseOfChange (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Thanks for the edit! kencf0618 (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron lung

Via a link from Hackaday [1], I came across this thread on Wu's Twitter: [2]. trying to organize Makers to help create new parts for a few old iron lungs still saving the lives of former polio victims. It isn't a news story/RS yet, but just want to flag as a potential future part of the article if it matures. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Given the fierce regulatory environment surrounding medical devices, this story shall undoubtedly mature. kencf0618 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of social media and BLP

Wikipedia's BLP policy requires evidence, based on secondary sources that are considered Reliable Sources, before putting negative information into the biography of a living person. One characteristic of respectable journalistic sources is that they make an effort to verify the claims of gossip. Another is that they let the person criticized reply to what critics say. Gossip networks, even when amplified by social media, don't meet that standard.

If the New York Times, for example, reports that Naomi Wu is 10 different people, or that all her technology ideas came from her boyfriend, then a link to that NYT article would belong in this bio, assuming also we include what Naomi Wu says in response. Until somebody reliable verifies claims heard in gossip, I hope we can follow wikipedia policy on BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on WP:RS
There have been several instances of major factual disputes in the mass media. The information at [3] (elaborated at [4] and summarized at [5]) certainly establishes reasonable doubt as to many of the claims in the article, and outlines the plausible means, motive, and opportunities for a {{hoax}}. Most convincing to me are the photos of the living spaces with identical furniture, the fact that she only shows herself using English language software for CAD programs which are available in Chinese, and then only in screencast, never actually showing her operating the software, and the fact that she claims she has people proofread her English posts for her, but never says who those people are -- and that she did it because her earliest posts were using poor grammar. Well, I just looked at her earliest Reddit comments, and she not only has perfect grammar, but she knows way more about SOC hardware than her claims of self-education in "Ruby on Rails, transitioning to Javascript" could reasonably support. Frankly, the article which is the source of her most recent controversy [6] establishes reasonable doubt, too. Her Patreon has been suspended because she doxxed the author of that article in a YouTube video which has since been removed along with all Reddit posts of it.
Therefore I'm tagging the article as a possible hoax, and will be asking for assistance on WP:BLPN.
By the way, if her detractors are correct, this is a pretty egregious instance of exploitation in order to troll feminists in the maker community, a knowing BLP violation for financial gain exploiting our readers, and WP:PUFFERY. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) [Added Twitter link.] 75.171.239.84 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This just in: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pax3q7/a-note-about-shenzhens-homegrown-cyborg-naomi-wu 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories from Reddit and Imgur do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP, and things that would never be allowed as sources for the article shouldn't be posted to the talk page either.
The recent article from Vice was written by someone who spent many days in the company of Naomi Wu, meeting her friends, seeing her home, and talking with her. If she were indeed a know-nothing fraud, he has every motivation to reveal that in his story--not only would he have a big scoop but also she seems to have attacked him quite publicly while the story was being written. Yet this most in-depth story yet gives no hint that the author subscribes to your conspiracy theories. I welcome a wider discussion on this article among people who care more about Wikipedia policies for BLP than about flinging mud at some minor tech-celebrity.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the author is Sarah Emerson, not a male. She was not able to complete those portions of her article, as her editor says, because when she started asking questions about "the unfairness of assuming a woman receives help, just because her partner works/worked in a similar industry" Naomi put her home address in a video on her YouTube channel expressing the desire that she would have to repeatedly move. Doesn't that seem to be more than a little oversensitive to you? I remain convinced by the portions of the evidence to which I referred. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Motherboard piece you linked to and it mentioned nothing about a hoax. I'm not going to read the other sources for what are obvious reasons to anybody who's taken a brief glance at WP:RS. I've removed the hoax tag and I hope to see some secondary sources with the slightest bit of credibility here before it gets readded. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider the archive.is links to "timaz's" now-deleted photos of the same apartment, with several instances of identical furniture to be reliable? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If some reliable source like NYT publishes those photos, after establishing their provenance, etc. they would be reliable. Links to somebody's untraceable and now-deleted photos? I don't understand why you know so much about WP mechanics for some things without understanding what "reliable" means here, and why it means that. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest in a few days time there will be additional secondary news sources covering the doxxing dispute. Until then I will simply {{POV}} tag the article. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not giving enough space to allegations that a person does not exist does not fit under the POV tag. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that she doesn't exist, I'm claiming that she's exploiting her sex appeal as a plagiarist, to among other things use Wikipedia to prop up the financial scam she had going on Patreon before she blew it up by doxxing the author of a friendly profile of her. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like a gamergater. She acknowledges that she's "exploiting her sex appeal" to educate, asking people for money on Patreon is not a "scam", doxxing somebody doesn't imply that anything in this article is false. If you believe she's a plagiarist, that's your business. But you're not going to put that into this article without a WP:RS. Have I addressed everything? Can you stop adding nonsense to the article now? Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I haven't added anything to the article, except for dispute tags that you removed twice, and have corrected the date of an article which was reverted. I think I'll wait for the news cycle on this. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you have contented yourself with adding inappropriate non-RS material to the Talk page, and trying to gain eyeballs for it with dispute tags and a posting to the BLP page. The doxxing claim is completely different from the fraud claim, and your enthusiasm for both suggests that your interest is not in building an encyclopedia but in finding a way to harm someone you dislike for reasons you don't share. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Naomi Wu is clearly notable, and we want readers to be able to find reliable, well-sourced information about her when they look up her article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find the evidence of a financial plagiarism scam leveraging the credulity of our readers both credible and directly supported by primary sources. Such sources are most certainly appropriate for discussion of improvements to the article, just as allegations of paid editing or source misrepresentation are. And that's what the allegations are, at their heart, the misrepresentation of sources and their authenticity.
The doxxing claims are a different matter altogether. Are you claiming that Wu did not show the addresses of the Vice article author and her editor, and suggest that people should harass them? If so, you might want to do your own research. YouTube and Patreon have come to contrary conclusions. I will not be goaded into further doxxing the victims. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is intended for discussing the ARTICLE, not for attacking the SUBJECT of the article. My opinion of the doxxing claim doesn't matter, nor does yours. If WP:RS examine and report it, the article will report what RS say. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, the talk page is to be used for discussing improvements to the article. I am not attacking Wu, only relating what I have become convinced is a scam to take advantage of, among many others, Wikipedia readers. I literally did not know she even existed until today. If there is any reason to believe that the doxxing, the questions it occurred in reaction to, and the allegations about which the questions were asked, should not be described in the article once secondary sources become available, I am open to considering them. I want to believe that she is an innocent role model, but I am convinced otherwise. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One more time, if any WP:RS report on or confirm your many different accusations of Wu, those articles will get some mention in Wikipedia. We are building an encyclopedia here, not Righting Great Wrongs by shaming people for doing this that or the other. I hope this helps. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is not to shame, it is to stop an alleged scam of which this article serves as a part. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this hatting of text. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations have been discussed in detail in this RS from last November. Does anyone have any objections to summarizing them from that source? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See #BuzzFeed article as justification for adding reddit theories? Get consensus before adding below. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of "SexyCyborg is Dismantling Cliches About Women in Tech, One Boob Shot at a Time" article

Re [7], is there really any legitimate dispute that [8] is clearly dated September 14, 2015? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft controversial section on Talk page before adding (consensus) version to article

Wikipedia in general does not recommend "Controversy" sections in BLPs, and particularly when the matter is WP:RECENT and reporting by RS has not occurred. Therefore, I am removing the new section an IP just added and posting it here, so that wkipedia people can discuss how to proceed.

Prior to the release of the 2018 Vice article, Wu had a very public disagreement with the writers about an email exchange where the reporters asked Wu if she would discuss claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband.[1][2]In a statement released after Wu's response to the article, Vice magazine clarified that, "The aim of the story was never to speculate on Naomi's private life, and the end result reflects that. But as with any story, we need to address what has been previously reported or publicly discussed by a subject. And as we detailed, the story we reported would be incomplete if we were to avoid these subjects."[3] After the article was published, Wu was removed from Patreon for displaying the home address (doxxing) of one of the reporters in one of her videos in an apparent act of retaliation for the article. Patreon Support released a statement on Twitter which stated, "We had several questions about why we removed https://www.patreon.com/sexycyborg . We removed this creator because they shared an individual’s home address in a public video as part of a threat against that individual. We have a zero tolerance policy for doxing."[4]

I will also mention WP:WEIGHT, this new addition as proposed would be 1/3 of the entire bio.HouseOfChange (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wu told me she didn’t want to discuss her marital status, but before publishing the piece, I followed up with her. I hoped to discuss the Reddit conspiracy theory that claimed someone she’s in a relationship with was behind her work. Wu has spent significant energy proving these conspiracy theories false, and shutting down this harassment has inspired other women who have faced similar treatment online. “Do you actually have time to hop on Skype to go over the Reddit conspiracy theory?” I wrote. “It would be really helpful [to address these allegations. I saw that video where you say you're [name redacted’s] wife—and I'd like to discuss the unfairness of assuming a woman receives help, just because her partner works/worked in a similar industry. If you don't want to discuss this at all, I understand and won't push. I think the Reddit conspiracy theory is vicious, but since this profile is long and comprehensive, I'd love to highlight your opinions about prototype bias, gender expectations, and racism as they relate to the rumor. Let me know how that sounds, and what you're comfortable with.”]
  2. ^ Naomi Wu Blasts Vice Over Allegedly Sexist Interview
  3. ^ A Note About 'Shenzhen's Homegrown Cyborg
  4. ^ Statement from Patreon about the removal of Wu's account
Just for the record, I'm not the IP who added that. I think we should wait for secondary sources (not the involved Vice press release) about the doxxing before adding anything, and I'm still very conflicted about how to handle the plagiarism aspect, but I remain convinced that unethical trolling of feminists, financial scamming, and puffery have all occurred. In any case, I recommend this Twitter thread for the most accurate and sober perspective on the issue I've seen so far. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article says "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories" but that has been worded as "claims" in this text. We should call it a conspiracy theory too. For brevity and for lack of RSes, the last two sentences about Patreon could be dropped. Otherwise it looks okay. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is an effort to COATRACK in the reddit conspiracy theory, which has never been confirmed by any RS. The draft cites "claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband", the basic reddit theory and something that does not appear in any of the sources cited. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I was thinking it would be good to mention the harassment she's faced, but perhaps instead of saying "there's a conspiracy theory about her" (which might inadvertently signal-boost the message of the harassers), we should just say "she's been the victim of harassment" (which this Motherboard article is a citation for). --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on WP:RS
Another proposed draft (by 60.249.100.210, HouseOfChange is adding this title for clarity)
Prior to the release of the 2018 Vice article, Wu had a very public disagreement with the writers about an email exchange where the reporters asked Wu if she would discuss the conspiracy theory that Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband.[1][2]In a statement released after Wu's response to the article, Vice magazine clarified that, "The aim of the story was never to speculate on Naomi's private life, and the end result reflects that. But as with any story, we need to address what has been previously reported or publicly discussed by a subject. And as we detailed, the story we reported would be incomplete if we were to avoid these subjects."[3] After the article was published, Wu was removed from Patreon for displaying the home address (doxxing) of one of the reporters in one of her videos in an apparent act of retaliation for the article. 60.249.100.210 (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, no. This latest draft COATRACKs in the reddit conspiracy theories about Wu, which are NOT detailed in the sources cited, and are NOT found in any RS. Wikipedia is not going to publish your conspiracy theories until/unless they appear in a reliable source. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kassycho/a-male-ceo-has-apologized-after-saying-that-this-female?utm_term=.icxamZaw7#.mwOqg4qEP This article states:
An anonymous blog post, which was widely shared, claimed that Sexy Cyborg "is an online persona created by Wu's boyfriend, who is a seasoned electrical engineer who has used Wu as the face of his operation." It cites "red flags" about her such as "just how good her written English skills are" for someone from China, and her familiarity with social media networks such as YouTube, Twitter and Instagram, which are blocked — but still accessible via VPN — in China.

The blog post has since been deleted.

Coverage of this theory were on the Internet way before the Vice article. 211.22.161.69 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ceo-apologises-for-saying-sexy-cyborg-female-tech-maker-is-fraud-and-front-for-male-developer-a3696861.html Another article that includes the "rumors"210.140.221.110 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there was an anonymous blogpost, since deleted, which BuzzFeed mentioned in an "article" that is mostly screencaps of tweets. If BuzzFeed had done some vetting that confirmed the claim, we could definitely include this. But BuzzFeed, which is sometimes (and sometimes not) considered a reliable source did not vet the claim. Instead it adds the name of yet another person who has actually met Naomi Wu and concludes that the claim is false. (There doesn't seem to be one reliable source or working reporter who has met Naomi Wu and decided that she is a beautiful dunce mascoting a boyfriend.) It is entirely possible that she has or had a boyfriend who helped her get started, but that is a completely different question and hardly a scandal. She has now been working in tech, meeting with people in tech, creating stuff which is technically simple but full of imagination in public, for years. The Vice article, by the way, notes that she has a WeChat group helping her with English for her posts in English.
The existence of this "vile conspiracy" theory is not notable or news that should be attached to anybody's BLP. Nearly every good-looking young woman in the public eye is subjected to similar whisper networks claiming that she is a phony who doesn't really know technology (or games, or Making, or whatever field she got recognition in.) I suppose it is one step up from rape threats and death threats, which is what Wu was referencing when she was concerned that Vice was going to reveal her real identity and location. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People go to Wikipedia for research, and it serves as a form of credibility. The fourth sentence in Dale Daugherty from Make's Wikipedia page comments on the issue between him and Naomi Wu.

Dale began to have doubts about Wu's authenticity, and send a private message to have someone read the information critical of Wu on reddit. https://twitter.com/KirinDave/status/928294396897902593. The subreddit that was critical of Wu was banned by reddit admins, but the content still exists on various archives. There are numerous articles covering the alleged "bro witch hunt" of Wu, but Wu has never addressed the more damning evidence of her critics.

The article by Vice mentions the controversy as a "reddit conspiracy theory," and talks about Wu's almost militant use of her followers. After receiving a message from the author asking if Wu would like to clear up the rumors about her, Wu took to twitter to harass and sic her followers on the authors of the article before it was even published. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ8xvUvU0AENDRR.jpg. After the article was published, and it is mostly a fluff piece, Wu reacted by again going to twitter to complain to her followers and then by releasing a video which contained the home address of one of the reporters at Vice. Her "farewell" video on Youtube does not mention her actions, nor did she apologize.

The facts are that there are claims that she is inauthentic. It was one of the reasons Dale doubted her. The Vice reporters, doing their job, asked if they could talk to her about the claims, and she reacted by doxxing one of them. Vice released a follow up article explaining their side of things, and Patreon released a statement on why Naomi was removed from their platform.

She is using Wikipedia as a tool to legitimize herself and her business. If Dale will forever have his page and reputation tarnished for doubting Wu's legitimacy, then I don't understand why a mentioning of the controversy and Wu's subsequent behavior cannot be published here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.75.181.188 (talk • contribs)

While I am strongly inclined to agree with your conclusions about the allegations of plagiarism for the reasons I detailed above, we must follow Wikipedia policy and wait for a reliable and secondary source about the accusations before mention of them can be included in the article, per the WP:V pillar policy. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another Twitter thread that does more to explain the social dynamics which may be helpful. It also raises some legitimate questions showing just how important it is to wait for independent analysis by people closer to the principals, which we may or may not ever have.... 75.171.239.84 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminding both 75.. and 45.. that the Talk page is to discuss the article, not to post long accusations about the subject of the article "supported" by links to "sources" like Twitter or reddit. If you object to the idea that Wu is "using wikipedia as a tool" to promote her legitimacy (not clear how that works because afaik she and her YouTube fans aren't editing this article), I object to your using the talk page as a tool to promote the legitimacy of reddit's conspiracy theories. We cannot improve the article with material sourced only by unreliable sources. Please discuss improvements to the article, and include links to WP:RS supporting your ideas.
One more comment, with all the injustice and suffering occurring around the world, I find it astounding that you care so much about your theory that some Chinese social media star, who openly says that her appearance is her superpower, who openly says that her own tech projects are simple, maybe got help from a current or former boyfriend. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to know why I personally care about the issue, google "Her engineer boyfriend is doing God's work". 75.171.239.84 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I care because it isn't exactly a mystery to people here in China who know them. They are taking advantage of people. Her whole back-story is a lie, and she is being held up as a role model. It is important for people to tell the truth in this world, and she/they could have avoided all the criticism by just telling the truth from the beginning. I applaud what they claim to be trying to do, but I don't like the way they are going about it. The Wikipedia article on her is a fluff piece that holds her up as some tech/feminist icon, but you can see what types of people they are by their recent actions. There is a lot of injustice in the world, and liars should be held accountable for their sins just as much as everyone else. Especially when they are taking advantage of the feminist and minority supporters to make a buck. I don't want my daughters to look up to someone like her/them, and Wikipedia not even having a footnote about the allegations and her behavior on social media will continue to add credibility to these con artist. 47.75.8.214 (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is important for people to tell the truth and it is important for Wikipedia to abide by its rules about RS and BLP. I predict that eventually some RS will report on the Patreon controversy, and when that happens we can cite that source in this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this hatting of text. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not come to prominence on Reddit

I'm removing the unsourced statement, "Wu first came to public prominence on Reddit." Because, these are her first comments on Reddit, in which she refers to several already-extant projects. Mass media news articles, including some cited already in the article, were written prior to those comments and refer to those earlier projects. At least ten of her 25 Thingiverse uploads are dated prior, as are about a third of her Imgur albums, many of which have hundreds of comments also dated prior. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed article as justification for adding reddit theories? Get consensus before adding

This Buzzfeed article has been proposed as a way to COATRACK into the article reddit's theory that Wu is an ignorant mascot for some techy man.

The Buzzfeed article is in some ways problematic. Reliable sources should do some vetting of claims they publish, but this article is mostly screencaps from Twitter and elsewhere, unvetted, including the conspiracy theory which it sources to an anonymous poster who later deleted it. We don't have a date for that claim, but Wu has been highly visible since 2015, and it is now 2018. So presumably her abilities and creations have made some progress in 3 years of working on tech, something conspiracy theorists do not address.

Buzzfeed clearly states that Dougherty's claims were based on anonymous theories on reddit. It notes that Dougherty asked for advice from somebody who had spent time with Wu (Andrew "bunnie" Huang.) Dougherty later claimed that if he had read the response from Huang, he would never have made his claim that Wu was not a real maker.

Similarly, the Vice reporter who spent 3 days with Wu also did not agree with the conspiracy theories from long-ago reddit "detectives," describing them as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career"[9]. So maybe using that quote from Vice would be an acceptable way to include the conspiracy theory that some people desperately want to add to this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I included an absolutely minimal description of the situation: "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer.[1]" to introduce a completely pertinent paragraph which says in no uncertain terms that the claims were reviewed in detail, debunked (although I disagree with that conclusion), statements made because of them were withdrawn and apologized for, and the apology was accepted.

References

  1. ^ Cho, Kassy (November 20, 2017). "A Male CEO Has Apologized After Saying That This Female Tech Designer Wasn't Real". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 7 April 2018.
There is no question that statement of fact, which is apparently the source of all the new controversy, as included is true. It exists in a reliable secondary source which cites and displays the corresponding primary sources. The other IP editor wanted to include a whole lot more. You would not have been unwilling to compromise by demanding consensus here if you didn't know that the number of editors who want to censor this information outnumber, by a few, those here who want to include it. Prior to this, you only complained about the lack of secondary reliable sources and the verbosity of the other IP's inclusion. Because you have moved the goalposts, stating criteria and then revising them after they were met, I will be asking for a wider review of the proposed inclusion. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Should the paragraph discussing questions of Wu's authenticity begin with the sentence, "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer."? 03:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Wu&oldid=835190388"