Talk:Brendan Kavanagh

DYK nomination

I have nominated this article as a DYK here, improved hook suggestions welcome. Crum375 (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sourcing for the phrase "Youtube sensation" in the DYK hook (emphasis added):

• ClassicFM: "Also known as Dr K, the pianist, composer and former secondary school English teacher had left his day job in order to become a YouTube sensation by giving live Boogie Woogie style performances in unusual places."
• Shareably: "Dr K, also known as Brendan Kavanagh, is a pianist, performer, and more. He’s also currently a complete YouTube sensation. He’s had millions of views thanks to his Boogie Woogie style of piano playing. People adore it."
• Ireland Calling: "Brendan Kavanagh is an Irish pianist who is an internet sensation thanks to his inspiring videos where he interacts with the public and wows them on the pianos of the London train stations."

Crum375 (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

I would appreciate help in finding more and/or better sources for this article. Crum375 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Terry Miles

Not currently mentioned but for possible future use, here is a link to an old and rare video from 1984. Crum375 (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Another video link for future use, this one an interview from the Jo Good show. Crum375 (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong bands

In case anyone happens to notice the mention in multiple sources of Dr K having played for some bands like Dexy’s Midnight Runners, the Jools Holland Big Band, and The Pet Shop Boys, this is plain wrong, according to the subject. He did play for many small North London bands, like Dan Dan Reidy & The Rocking Ballad Boys, in Kilburn, London, as can be seen in this old video, and the link to it is provided in the article. Apparently one source published this wrong info by mistake and others started blindly copying without verifying, so beware. Crum375 (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding material to the article

Someone added some material to the article without citing a single source. Although everything that person added is probably correct, everything in WP must be well sourced, per WP:NOR and WP:RS. Even what's in the article so far is not perfectly sourced (i.e. from reliable third party secondary sources), so if you want to help (the article is currently being considered for DYK), it would great if you can find more reliable sources. There is lots of material that can be added, but WP's rules require only well sourced material. Also, regarding this specific item, when the article is this short it doesn't make sense to expand one aspect (e.g. different disguises) too much, since it seems out of balance with the rest. Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

External links

Someone added an external link describing an individual's impression of Dr K in a Spanish PDF which I removed for now. Please read the WP:PSTS, WP:EL and WP:RS guidelines. In general, we want the EL list to be as short as possible, essentially only items that can't be part of a normal reference. In this case, although the author's reaction to Dr K is understandable and common, having a dissertation about it in a foreign language PDF file is not a reliable source (note that WP normally expects "secondary sources" whereas this would be a "primary source"), nor easily accessible to the average reader. I am considering upgrading this article to Good Article status once we have sufficient quality sources, so the trick should be to find the sources that can survive a typical Good Article review process (which would emphasize secondary vs. primary sources). Again, the issue is not "correctness" or "factuality", but whether the added material conforms to WP's sourcing policies and also whether the article is easy to read and well balanced. Crum375 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

German translation

Since there are many German fans, I'd like to just copy/paste this article into German Wikipedia and translate it. Is this possible or can somebody help me with that? -Alex --5.61.154.90 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would just go ahead and do that, don't see any reason why not. Might come over to check it out and maybe help a bit. Be sure to interlink them in the "language" section in the sidebar. Crum375 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DOB

I have removed an addition of an unsourced birth month by an IP. I see two separate issues regarding DOB on BLPs. First you need a reliable secondary source. Second, there is no reason that I can see why we need more specificity than a birth year for a BLP. Given today's identity theft crisis, and the fact that any BLP article on WP is already problematic to the subject, adding even more information about the exact DOB would only create more problems, without adding anything significantly useful to the reader. Crum375 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic!

I just wanted to mentioned how overjoyed my heart became when I saw Nelly Ben-Or get a mention on the Did You Know section today!!! :) :) :) 49.185.10.210 (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

removal of content

I had to remove a ton of content because it was sourced to crowdshared sites. Please let's talk before adding it back in unless we can find reliable sources. --valereee (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dr K at a public piano.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevance for noting in this article the religious affiliation of St Aloysius' College

In the current version of the article, the religious affiliation of St Aloysius' College is noted.

−

Kavanagh attended [[St Aloysius' College, Highgate|St Aloysius' College]], in Highgate, from 1978 onwards.

+

Kavanagh attended the catholic [[St Aloysius' College, Highgate|St Aloysius' College, in Highgate,]] from 1978 onwards.

It is not clear to me why this is relevant to note. In a biography, we do not normally point out a school's religious affiliation when just linking to a school unless it is especially relevant to do so in context. The religious affiliation is already covered at the beginning of the lead sentence for the article about the school, so any users who are curious do not have far to go to learn the religious affiliation.

Perhaps there is some special relevance I failed to appreciate, so I invite editors to comment on whether or not they find it relevant. For those who do find it relevant please provide an explanation. Note well that per WP:ONUS (emphasis added):

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Courtesy ping @Jaymailsays. Thank you.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Archer1234 is correct, and highlighting the schools religious affiliation is not warranted in the context. Their reminder of WP:ONUS is also appropriate. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Brendan mentioned his Roman Catholic St Aloysius College Education in his cited interview.

You should perhaps concentrate on his University Education history which is totally unverified (page not found) instead of denying his religious connection. Jaymailsays (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You are either ignoring or not understanding WP:ONUS. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Quoting again from WP:ONUS: not all verifiable information must be included. Just because he said it, does not mean we should include it. We do not repeat every utterance of the subject of a biography. We exercise editorial judgement as to whether it is relevant in the context to include a claim. So, other than the fact that he said it, what additional reasons are there for including it?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 00:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Peter Sellers went to Roman Catholic St Aloysius College according to his bio. . . . . . . . . .

"Sellers attended the nearby Roman Catholic school St Aloysius' College in Highgate, run by the Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy." Jaymailsays (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Context matters. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I can see this is going nowhere. I'll give it another day to see if any other editors have anything to add. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As Archer1234 says, context matters. The Sellars biography goes into some detail regarding his relationship with religion. The Kavanaugh biography contains nothing suggesting that the affiliation of his school is of any significance. It doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Update to Infobox

I made significant changes to the YouTube portion of the infobox and want to explain what the changes are and why I made them so that editors are aware.

1. The primary change is enabling the display of automatically updated count of subscribers. To enable this, the |subscribers= parameter was removed from the infobox in this article. {{Infobox YouTube personality}} is already set up and configured to pull subscriber data from Wikidata when the |subscribers= parameter is not present or has no assigned value. Wikidata has a bot that periodically updates the subscriber count for YouTube channels. The update is done for each channel when there is a 10% change in the number of subscribers or when a multiple of a major factor of 10 is crossed (e.g., 10,000; 100,000; 1M, etc.).
   • Note well, if any editor subsequently sets the subscriber count manually, then the automatic update will cease to be displayed by the infobox.
2. In concert with #1 above, the following changes were made:
   1. |view_date= is added. The number of views is not automatically updated and displayed, so |views= is still needed and needs to be set manually. Use |view_date= to set the date for the latest view count. N.B., the date should be month and year only; no day per {{Infobox YouTube personality}} documentation.
   2. |stats_update= is removed. Since the automatic display of subscribe counts will include a date that is or can be different than the date for view counts, the |stats_update= is no longer applicable (and is arguably confusing when the dates for both the subscriber count and views count differ). Each count (subscribers and views) have their own dates displayed, so it should be clear what the "as of" dates are.
3. DrK has updated the ID for his YouTube channel from "BrendanKavanaghDrK" to "@DrKBoogieWoogie". While the old one still works and is an alias for the new one, I have updated the |channel_direct_url= to the new channel ID.

If there are any questions or concerns, this is the place to raise them.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: The subscriber count in Wikidata is updated automatically when any of the following conditions have been met:

1. changed by at least 10% or
2. surpassed a new factor of 10 milestone (100k, 1M, 10M, etc.) or
3. not been updated in a year

DrK's current subscriber count as recorded in Wikidata is 2.24M as of 24 January 2024 and will not be updated until it reaches 2.47M (condition #1) or in January 2025 if it has not been updated otherwise (condition #3). Condition #2 would not apply because that only comes into play if he gets to 10M subscribers.

If there's consensus to revert back to updating his subscribers count manually during this period where he is seeing a sudden increase, it is easy enough to do that. In the future if his increase in subscribers slows down, we can always reinstate displaying the automated update. Comments?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 21:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Chinese news source (#17)

Appears biased 121.244.54.200 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I added an explicit attribution (World Journal) to the "report" about the incident being a "misunderstanding", including that the source is a Pan-Blue Taiwanese broadsheet newspaper. That should make it clearer who is doing the reporting. If there are any reliable sources that call into question that report, then it is probably worth noting those.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@121, I like your use of the word “appears”. I agree that the title of the source can be better, and it seems that they have changed it [1]. Have you read and understood the source?

If it’s not misunderstanding (Per source, machine translation by Google: “Cultural differences lead to different perceptions between the two parties”), what do you think it is? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone removed the World Journal source which is completely unfair. It presented the arguments from the Chinese side, which pointed out that there was a misunderstanding due to the fact that they signed a NDA and fear public recording may lead to contract breaches; the word "shoot" which may have misinterpreted as by firearms rather than cameras: Dr K insinuating that the group are Japanese then communists, and then playing a Chinese song, which might have been interpreted as mockery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.42.191 (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much IP 120.17. What you wrote summarise the reliable source I added very well, and it’s what I should’ve posted or added to the article. I didn’t as I don’t have the eloquence and range of vocabularies as you do :-)

Also, when I noticed that the mild text (“the incident might have been caused by misunderstanding”) that I added was reverted and was accused as “biased”, I know how unreasonable people can be and this is going to be a time sink that’s going no where. So I gave up, cowardly. I really admire your courage, and Wikipedia needs users like you. Thank you for your contributions! They warm my heart.--Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

And I’ve added this to the Further reading section:

• "還原倫敦火車站鋼琴事件 因誤會、價值觀衝突而起" [Restore the London Railway Station Piano Incident, which started due to misunderstanding and conflict of values (machine translation by Google)]. VOA (in Traditional Chinese). 25 Jan 2024. Retrieved 28 Jan 2024.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The addition has been reverted, with an edit summary: “removed unnecessary and unhelpful further reading”. I believe the removal is unwarranted, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOBLANKING. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a reliable source, it fails WP:RS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it offers valuable insight from he Chinese group's perspective that contradicts Kavanagh's claims. Nothing in [[Wikipedia

Reliab e sources/Perenai l sources]] says it's specifically prohibited.

120.17.222.205 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

[2], this isn't a reliable or mainstream source and this website is controversial and is usually removed from Wikipedia, hence why it is only cited on a minority of Chinese biography articles. The article in question basically consists of a YouTube video and some photographs. It is not properly written like a newspaper article should be. This is very poor tabloid content. It's a garbage source. The newspaper itself has strong communist links [3]. This is neither a reliable or neutral source. There hasn't been an RFC about this newspaper yet but if there was it would probably be deprecated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You're calling for elimination of any source that doesn't fit your POV. You're cherry picking the claim from the right wing Jamestown Foundation but not the one from the CUNY scholar who noted otherwise per Blocked on Weibo: What Gets Suppressed on China s Version of Twitter (And Why). And it's no more biased than the right wing Piers Morgan or the pro-US RFA that's currently used in the article.120.17.198.181 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant isn't a valid response. I have no POV on this, I merely deleted an unreliable source. It's obvious you are sock-puppeting on multiple IPs to push your narrative here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your apologies to the IP at the neutral point of view notice board. I think you would like to strick out your false comment above. WP:NPA. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

POV editing from IP

• 120.17.198.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.17.222.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.17.126.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.17.170.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.17.42.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.17.184.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These IPS are all the same user who has been edit warring over an unreliable source [4]. You can see here that they keep restoring this same source on multiple IPs [5], even though myself and two other users have removed this source because it us unreliable, for example [6], [7]. I see this IP has been doing this for 4 days. The IP is also leaving false edit summaries telling others not to remove this source without discussing when the source has been mentioned on this talk-page.

This IP is ignoring consensus. 3 users have removed this source. They have no consensus to repeatedly add it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there are “3 users” who have removed the source at the time you posted. Can we have the diffs please? The third user seems to appear *after* your post above, and your ability in predicting that really surprised me. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Kindly stop leaving false information. You are the one that's systematically trying to make the page biased towards Dr K and eliminate any Chinese POV. World Journal is a reliable source based in Taiwan, and your only evidence about it being pro-China comes from an article from the right wing Jamestown Foundation 20 years ago. Furthermore they are simply citing and summarising the video that's been floating around Chinese social media.

And as an anon editor my ISP randomly changes my IP address every time I try to edit Wikipedia. I don't know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.184.33 (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I fear that new IP addresses will appear and edit Brendan Kavanagh's page. If not done already, could the page be semi-protected for a week or two? Cheers Jaymailsays (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The IP has broken the 3 revert rule in the last 24 hours as they are ignoring consensus and repeatedly adding the same source [8]. The same IP also complained at the neutral point of view noticeboard [9]. It is unlikely this IP will leave the article alone. A block is probably necessary here and page protection if it happens again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Per 3RR: “An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.”

So *no violation*. I do believe someone need to review WP:ICA though. BTW, I see that you have reverted others’ edits 3 times already. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is all one user using multiple IPs. Here is the IP restoring the same material 4 times [10], [11], [12], [13]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In the last diff (13) you provided the edit was made on 26 Jan, how can it be “within 24-hour period” with the other 3, which are made on 28 Jan? Please *stop* misleading people and review WP:CIP WP:ICA, WP:NPA. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC); 15:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIP? This is Commons media protection. What relevancy is that to this discussion? Please stop citing WP:NPA as well, I have not attacked any users on this page. I made one allegation of sock-puppetry because an IP was using 7 different IPs. I have been on Wikipedia a long time and have seen this tactic used in the past, people switch off their mobiles and change their IP for deceptive editing purposes.

However, the user explained their reason for this and I apologized. Out of good faith I striked that comment, I didn't have to. Let's not be so pedantic about this as all users will make minor mistakes, it is not productive to be discussing this but if you really want to look over this with a fine tooth comb. The IP above first accused me of having a "POV", "Cherry-picking" and favouring "right-wing" sources [14]. These could considered more of an attack, than accusing someone of sock-puppetry with multiple IPs. Just to be clear I have not added any sources to this article, I have no POV on this, I couldn't care less about this topic, this is not what I specialize in. I merely deleted a source that fails WP:RS on this article. It was a garbage source. It is good Wikipedia editing to remove unreliable sources. Let's not ruin the credibility of this website with unreliable content. Other users have since removed this source, so the issue is now resolved. Let's not make a big issue out of a non-issue. If you have a personal issue with me, drop me an email. Otherwise move on. There is a lot of productive editing to be done on this website, let's not waste time discussing this any longer. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my typo when citing policy. It’s now corrected.

You’ve accused the IP of sock-puppetry *and* violating 3RR, while they didn’t (and you reverted their edits 3 times as well). I don’t think the source is unreliable. The IP’s arguments on that is correct (and information 20 years ago that you mentioned won’t make it unreliable).

You asked that a *block* to be imposed on the IP user, and now you seem to imply that I’m “making a big issue out of a non-issue” and “have a personal issue with you”[?]. I don’t know who’s “making a big issue out of a non-issue”. You’ve wasted your precious time writing a long post above. Yes, let’s move on. It’s no point spending your time digging and listing those many IPs in order to have a good faith user blocked. Happy editing and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A wp:editwaris still a violation of wp:3rr, not matter how many IP's you get. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So you want both of them blocked? (Well so far none of them has reverted *more than* 3 times in 24-hours though. And I seem to have read somewhere that blocking is for prevention but *not* for punishment? I seem to have read people wrote “move on”...) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is called a warning. If they revert again, yes I will report them, not until. But if the IP is dynamic, they may only see the warning here. Also (yes) it is about prevention, so if they continue this would prevent it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me apologize, I was up until 6:30am last night so there has been some mistakes from me, but I am not convinced these IPs were acting in good faith because what they were doing was restoring the same content and accusing me of adding "false information". Dustfreeworld is correct the IP didn't violate the 3RR in the 24 hour period but there was 4 edits re-adding the same material in total, so this behaviour is not good. I made 3 reverts, not 4. I am happy to move on and not comment here again but as I stated before I am not convinced the source is reliable. I find it odd Dustfreeworld is claiming this source is reliable. Perhaps users should vote on that source. Crum375 wrote this article and is obviously familiar with the topic, perhaps they can offer their opinion about it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your attitude and believe both of you are good faith users. I don’t think we should create yet another bigger time sink for the community (the source is from Taiwan, not Mainland China, and information claiming it’s unreliable is really outdated). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Agreed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The IPs on 120.17.0.0/16 appear to be behind a CGNAT, so the IP for any user there will change dynamically and regularly. It likely won't do any good to block individual IPs on that range and blocking the entire range may be problematic if there is significant collateral impact. However, I have seen some Australian CGNAT ranges get blocked for 3+ years due to prolific LTA activity (which doesn't appear to be the case here).  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Odd there is a npov discussion and I am sure Dustfreeworld has said it is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Application procedure of filming, and third-party consents

Someone is not happy about this:

To perform, photograph or film at the pianos for commercial gain at the St Pancras railway station, application procedure is required. If any third-party consents are required for filming, it shall be applicant's responsibility to obtain these consents.

Any objections for adding these 2 statements? Toto11zi (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Toto11zi (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That "someone" would be me. Did you read and understand WP:SYNTH which I cited with my removal? I'm going to guess "no" because a removal based on synthesis is a context based issue and you have not included or mentioned context here. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand clearly. These statements are from the official stpancras.com almost directly, can you explain a bit more, and how these statements can be fixed? Toto11zi (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Note also St Pancras International is owned by HS1 Ltd. Those statements are from HS1 Ltd. Toto11zi (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is a core part of Wikipedia policy. Neither source names Kavanagh. They cannot be used to make statements regarding Kavanagh. Contributors personal opinions on the applicability of laws to particular circumstances are synthesis. WP:SYNTH is a core part of Wikipedia policy, and non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither source names Kavanagh? Source must include Kavangh? Are you sure? Is that mentioned in WP:SYNTH? Toto11zi (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. You are combining material on specific laws, with material on specific circumstances, to support a conclusion that those specific laws apply in those specific circumstances. This is exactly what the policy forbids. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As stated, the statements are from the source almost directly. Can you explain more, and how these statements can be fixed? Toto11zi (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you answer question about? Must source include Kavangh? Is that mentioned in WP:SYNTH? Toto11zi (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No, of course WP:SYNTH doesn't mention Kavangh. It does however explain what synthesis is, and your edit is unambiguously contrary to that policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You wrote: "Neither source names Kavanagh. They cannot be used to make statements regarding Kavanagh.", what rule is this? That's not WP:SYNTH. As stated above, the statements were almost directly from the property owner of St Pancras railway station. Toto11zi (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are incapable of understanding Wikipedia policy, that isn't my problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstood Wikipedia policy. As stated above, statements were from the owner of the station, not me, there's no synthesis of statements. Toto11zi (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Any further attempt by you to edit synthesis into the article after being reverted, and after having policy explained repeatedly will be reported. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The two Chinese language citations and the associated text should be removed. There is no consensus to include unsourced material. Ownership of the station is irrelevant to social platform filming. If it was mainstream media or a paid advertiser, station by-laws may apply. Jaymailsays (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't add to the problem by engaging in WP:OR yourself. We don't base content on our personal opinions as to the applicability of laws to the events described. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Two Chinese news sources regarding Liu's response

Can you please explain why you said they are factually incorrect? Ping @Jaymailsays 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. While keeping in mind that it is not unto us to determine the truth of what is reported or not. We are tasked with covering only what the sources say, no more, no less. See WP:TRUTH Marcus Markup (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Having looked at the disputed content, and the sources cited via Google Translate, I'd have to suggest that the sources have been cherry-picked to some extent. Both are reporting on the controversy, and both note some scepticism about Liu's version of events. Citing the articles for her side of the argument without also noting the scepticism seems questionable to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The content of the part I contributed to does indeed serve as a response from the other side of this controversy, and I did not present her claims as facts. In this sense, these contents do not deviate from the two news articles. As for the opinions regarding Liu's response, they should be left for public/media comments on this event. What about adding few sentences, like "However, many netizens express negative sentiments towards Liu's statements."? These opinions seem to be cited from "netizens," though. Would it be appropriate to include them in the article? Additionally, I have not found any English media coverage about Liu. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't help remembering what Kavanagh said to the officer, "The camera doesn't lie."

Having watched the video in its entirety, Liu is not impartial on the events that unfolded. There has been a degree of spin, to compensate for the inevitable backlash that followed the reactions. She reportedly said, "allegedly stirring up conflict with native language privilege and ethnic discrimination to attract attention and profit," apart from the fact the statement could be considered as verging on libellous criticism of Kavanagh. The video shows Kavanagh asking if she was Japanese? He based this on the conversation he had with a fellow musician on film, who said he was working with a Japanese TV crew, who were currently doing a sequel on the station public piano, to update from two years ago. If in conversation, I get mistaken for a nationality, other than my own, I wouldn't jump to the immediate conclusion that I was the subject of "ethnic discrimination". It is surely a leap too far to accept that Kavanagh ever intended to hurt their feelings.

He was playing the piano, while being filmed and Liu came to him and with a friend asked him to delete their images and voices. If we asked a supermarket to delete our images, I think we know the reply we would receive. It is usually good advice not to approach a camera if you want to preserve your anonymity. It is certainly true that the station owners, could have asked Kavanagh to leave their station and escort him to the exit, yet they didn't and haven't since the episode took place. Jaymailsays (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Kavanagh versus Dr. K

There is some disagreement about whether to refer to the subject of this article as "Kavanagh" or "Dr. K". I am opening this discussion to encourage editors to share their views, especially those based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)