This article was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nathan Rich article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The sources are certainly terrible. I would recommend AFD, as was suggested previously. Beach drifter ( talk) 19:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
In an effort to focus on content, what are the disputed items for the last full revision? Diaozhadelaowai ( talk) 04:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Trufeseeker, as you've tried to delete and speedy delete, as well as removed much of the article, I've mentioned you here. Diaozhadelaowai ( talk) 04:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich to the top of the page. IntoThinAir ( talk) 18:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found reliable sources during a Google search and would like to modify the article. Because the article is fully protected, I am unable to to do that. Thank you. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This article gets high levels of abuse from IP editors (who escape the DS warnings on this TP). There are some very inappropriate things on this BLP. He is clearly a controversial figure, and also it seems has enemies. I also get the feeling that his own supporters also edit here. They only way to resolve this is ECP. It has already been to AfD twice in 3 months. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Per the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich (2nd nomination), this article was reverted to the July 31, 2019 version due vandalism and numerous edits referencing non-notable sources. DrIdiot ( talk) 04:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Other pages on personalities have links to their YouTube channel. How is this information NOT something that should be on this Wiki Page??
Wikipedia once was THE goto source for raw information. It now seems to have certain political agendas as well.
I had tried several edits to link the YouTube channel and each time it was deleted without reason given. The last edit I tried was simply a "here's his YouTube channel" and that was deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianAnarchist ( talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This is incorrect: "Nathan Rich is not notable for his YouTube channel.: His YouTube channel has over 400,000 subscribers. Very few people know of or have read his Scientology book. I think this Wiki page needs some data on his pro-Chinese Communist Party YouTube entries. Bonhomem ( talk) 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Nathan Rich recognized internationally much more as a blogger about China-related issues than he is about Scientology. THERE SHOULD BE A PARAGRAPH ABOUT HIS PRO-CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY STANCE HERE. He believes the corona virus was transmitted from US athletes to Wuhan in 2019. His blog has tens of thousands of followers. In contrast, how many copies of his Scientology book have been sold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonhomem ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
"Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise." My interpretation of this is that we do not suppress the fact that Nathan is doing pro-CCP advocacy but to cover the nature of said advocacy, we have to find RS to avoid giving them undue prominence. I think the page is fine as is now, but if you want to include a subscriber count I think that is fine. DrIdiot ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, I have posted some of my "original research" on Mr. Rich. He may be known more for his Scientology history in the west, but WORLDWIDE he is know much more for his vlog in China of more than 400K subscribers. I am not a supporter of Scientology in any way or form and have not added China-related material here in order to distract attention from Scientology. I would merely suggest that Rich is now renowned as a CCP supporter, dwarfing his Scientology history. Bonhomem ( talk) Bonhomem —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Original research is *not* permitted by Wikipedia (the link above is to a page titled "No original research": /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research). I am not accusing you of supporting or opposing any organization. The point is that the claim that he is "more well known" for something needs to be backed up by reliable sources (RS), see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources -- and as far as I can tell very few RS have covered his China content (a few exceptions mention him in passing and are cited in the article). DrIdiot ( talk) 03:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow, the level of self-righteous prejudice in this thread is horrifyingly revealing about Wikipedia's innate bias and the bullshit claims of 'neutrality'. 119.236.47.178 ( talk) 08:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This keeps coming up and I want to summarize the main points here.
DrIdiot ( talk) 05:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no "original research" on my part here. I merely summarized some of his blog posts and quoted him directly ("_"). He is much more well-known international as a commentator on China and China-related matters than he is on the Scientology issue. I believe that this Wikipedia page needs to reflect this fact. I notice that most of your Wiki entries are "China-related. But for some reason you think that China commentary does not merit reflection here. I don't understand your logic. Bonhomem ( talk) 06:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Bonhomem
"If the subject receives further coverage in reliable sources, those can be used to add content to this page." What could possibly be a more "reliable source" than the subject's writing itself for material? Bonhomem ( talk) 06:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Bonhomem
I too questioned this label when I first saw it, but after I took a look at the guy’s youtube page [1] he does seem be producing what a reasonable person would consider to be Propaganda. He is also used extensively by unambiguously propaganda sources such as China Daily [2] and the Global Times calls him “pro-China” and also heavily features his work [3]. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 19:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Global Times is a CCP propaganda paper, not reliable.
we can use the subject’s youtube page to evaluate the veracity of the article’s claim's, then we have left WP:BLP. We can't make any judgements or own opinions, especially given the controversial nature of the material, outside of what high quality independent RS says (which Taiwan News is not appropriate). We can use WP:PRIMARY sources for very basis things in a BLP (e.g. confirmation of age in some cases), but this is just to controversial and broad an issue. The core issue with this BLP (the more I think of it), is that the subject is only borderline notable (per WP:GNG, and the last two AfDs), and thus we have very little high-quality independent RS on him. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
To add to this article: his repeated YouTube videos covering the topic of the Xinjiang re-education camps. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(1 year later) To add to this article: his repeated YouTube videos covering the topic of the Xinjiang re-education camps. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last by the vandal 83.44.49.206 has been missed and needs to be undone. Thanks, DigitalChutney ( talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Nathan Rich is a bilingual American living in China. His grasp of Chinese language and culture along with his blog posts have brought him millions of viewers on YouTube. His perspective on Chinese culture and history has created controversy among westerner intelligencia but his message is one of peace and progress. He is not a political person according to his own reflections. 2607:FB91:2D18:9495:2DDC:DBCC:EB2F:59B6 ( talk) 17:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Didn't Rich announce on his YouTube channel in March 2022 that he was discontinuing making videos on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nathan Rich article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The sources are certainly terrible. I would recommend AFD, as was suggested previously. Beach drifter ( talk) 19:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
In an effort to focus on content, what are the disputed items for the last full revision? Diaozhadelaowai ( talk) 04:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Trufeseeker, as you've tried to delete and speedy delete, as well as removed much of the article, I've mentioned you here. Diaozhadelaowai ( talk) 04:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich to the top of the page. IntoThinAir ( talk) 18:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found reliable sources during a Google search and would like to modify the article. Because the article is fully protected, I am unable to to do that. Thank you. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This article gets high levels of abuse from IP editors (who escape the DS warnings on this TP). There are some very inappropriate things on this BLP. He is clearly a controversial figure, and also it seems has enemies. I also get the feeling that his own supporters also edit here. They only way to resolve this is ECP. It has already been to AfD twice in 3 months. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Per the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich (2nd nomination), this article was reverted to the July 31, 2019 version due vandalism and numerous edits referencing non-notable sources. DrIdiot ( talk) 04:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Other pages on personalities have links to their YouTube channel. How is this information NOT something that should be on this Wiki Page??
Wikipedia once was THE goto source for raw information. It now seems to have certain political agendas as well.
I had tried several edits to link the YouTube channel and each time it was deleted without reason given. The last edit I tried was simply a "here's his YouTube channel" and that was deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianAnarchist ( talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This is incorrect: "Nathan Rich is not notable for his YouTube channel.: His YouTube channel has over 400,000 subscribers. Very few people know of or have read his Scientology book. I think this Wiki page needs some data on his pro-Chinese Communist Party YouTube entries. Bonhomem ( talk) 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Nathan Rich recognized internationally much more as a blogger about China-related issues than he is about Scientology. THERE SHOULD BE A PARAGRAPH ABOUT HIS PRO-CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY STANCE HERE. He believes the corona virus was transmitted from US athletes to Wuhan in 2019. His blog has tens of thousands of followers. In contrast, how many copies of his Scientology book have been sold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonhomem ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
"Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise." My interpretation of this is that we do not suppress the fact that Nathan is doing pro-CCP advocacy but to cover the nature of said advocacy, we have to find RS to avoid giving them undue prominence. I think the page is fine as is now, but if you want to include a subscriber count I think that is fine. DrIdiot ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, I have posted some of my "original research" on Mr. Rich. He may be known more for his Scientology history in the west, but WORLDWIDE he is know much more for his vlog in China of more than 400K subscribers. I am not a supporter of Scientology in any way or form and have not added China-related material here in order to distract attention from Scientology. I would merely suggest that Rich is now renowned as a CCP supporter, dwarfing his Scientology history. Bonhomem ( talk) Bonhomem —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Original research is *not* permitted by Wikipedia (the link above is to a page titled "No original research": /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research). I am not accusing you of supporting or opposing any organization. The point is that the claim that he is "more well known" for something needs to be backed up by reliable sources (RS), see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources -- and as far as I can tell very few RS have covered his China content (a few exceptions mention him in passing and are cited in the article). DrIdiot ( talk) 03:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow, the level of self-righteous prejudice in this thread is horrifyingly revealing about Wikipedia's innate bias and the bullshit claims of 'neutrality'. 119.236.47.178 ( talk) 08:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This keeps coming up and I want to summarize the main points here.
DrIdiot ( talk) 05:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no "original research" on my part here. I merely summarized some of his blog posts and quoted him directly ("_"). He is much more well-known international as a commentator on China and China-related matters than he is on the Scientology issue. I believe that this Wikipedia page needs to reflect this fact. I notice that most of your Wiki entries are "China-related. But for some reason you think that China commentary does not merit reflection here. I don't understand your logic. Bonhomem ( talk) 06:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Bonhomem
"If the subject receives further coverage in reliable sources, those can be used to add content to this page." What could possibly be a more "reliable source" than the subject's writing itself for material? Bonhomem ( talk) 06:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Bonhomem
I too questioned this label when I first saw it, but after I took a look at the guy’s youtube page [1] he does seem be producing what a reasonable person would consider to be Propaganda. He is also used extensively by unambiguously propaganda sources such as China Daily [2] and the Global Times calls him “pro-China” and also heavily features his work [3]. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 19:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Global Times is a CCP propaganda paper, not reliable.
we can use the subject’s youtube page to evaluate the veracity of the article’s claim's, then we have left WP:BLP. We can't make any judgements or own opinions, especially given the controversial nature of the material, outside of what high quality independent RS says (which Taiwan News is not appropriate). We can use WP:PRIMARY sources for very basis things in a BLP (e.g. confirmation of age in some cases), but this is just to controversial and broad an issue. The core issue with this BLP (the more I think of it), is that the subject is only borderline notable (per WP:GNG, and the last two AfDs), and thus we have very little high-quality independent RS on him. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
To add to this article: his repeated YouTube videos covering the topic of the Xinjiang re-education camps. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(1 year later) To add to this article: his repeated YouTube videos covering the topic of the Xinjiang re-education camps. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last by the vandal 83.44.49.206 has been missed and needs to be undone. Thanks, DigitalChutney ( talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Nathan Rich is a bilingual American living in China. His grasp of Chinese language and culture along with his blog posts have brought him millions of viewers on YouTube. His perspective on Chinese culture and history has created controversy among westerner intelligencia but his message is one of peace and progress. He is not a political person according to his own reflections. 2607:FB91:2D18:9495:2DDC:DBCC:EB2F:59B6 ( talk) 17:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Didn't Rich announce on his YouTube channel in March 2022 that he was discontinuing making videos on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)