Talk:Emily Chang (journalist)

Untitled

Pips25 has already removed the proposed deletion, but I would echo those comments that the Emmy Awards do prove notoriety, which is backed up by CNN website. Primary evidence of the Emmys has been added in a reference to the official announcement of awards by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences website.Riverside09 (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

appearance in other media organisation?

i seem to have seen her on report outside CNN and bloomberg, has she done some independent reporting work? Akinkhoo (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Emily Chang Bloomberg pic.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emily Chang Bloomberg pic.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 31 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emily Chang (journalist). 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/20110518084055/http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com:80/2009/11/16/obama-communist-t-shirt-tussle/ to http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/16/obama-communist-t-shirt-tussle/

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} 07:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Article creation and issues

Hi wikipedians, this article was created with with multiple external links embedded in the article which does not conform to wikipedia's guideline.

• Need to follow inline citation per Citing sources.
• User:Riverside09 may be closely associated with Emily Chang based on user history.
• There are also possible copyright violations.

I have cleaned up some areas, but more work is needed. Article should have been reviewed prior to adding class in WikiProject. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Journalism

In WikiProject Journalism, importance is set to high. In 2018, Chang is ranked #6 by Rational360 as one of the Influencer Index Top 50 Journalists followed by CEOs. Top50 Journalists Followed by CEOs. SWP13 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral content

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, I'm happy to discuss the changes, but per WP:ONUS, the material should stay removed while we discuss it. I felt that the material, while not egregious, made the article appear promotional on the whole, and a lot of the sourcing for the awards was weak. As for 'Filmography', for a journalist to appear on news programs is hardly noteworthy. The article repeatedly cites her speaking agency bio, which is both non-independent and non-neutral. On the whole, I felt the removals were thus an improvement. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ganesha811, I'll respond soon, cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Given WP:ONUS I'm going to remove the material again while we discuss and hopefully we can figure out a consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ONUS is the issue here; WP:BRD is. I didn't find the content overly promotional. Can you provide a few examples where you thought it was?

I'm in agreement on the Filmography part. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't restore material that's a clear copyright violation. Again, I'm happy to discuss, as we are, but while WP:BRD is optional, WP:ONUS is policy. So the obligation is on you to make the case for why this content is *not* promotional, or at least why it belongs in the article. I think we need better, more independent sources for material currently cited to a speaking agency bio. There's other material which is simply uncited. I think several of the awards are non-notable or trivial. Listing a series of unimportant awards like the 2018 Rational360 Influencer Index - Top Journalists Followed by CEOs on Twitter is classic WP:NOTRESUME stuff. Truly meaningful awards like Emmys (on which we should be more specific - what were the ones that she won?) can be mentioned in prose, not pulled out into a list. For a start, sounds like we can get rid of the 'Filmography' section. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio issue has been resolved.

Filmography section has been removed.

I don't see how WP:ONUS is applicable here. What objectionable material are you removing? This is a discussion about style, not inappropriate content.

You haven't demonstrated that any of the page content is promotional.

Uncited content can be tagged or removed.

No disagreement on the award point. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, with the removal of the standalone 'Awards' section, I think we're close anyway. I'll dig and see if I can find a more specific source on what Emmys she's won. But on process, WP:ONUS is always applicable. Since we agreed on the 'Filmography' and 'Awards', that content isn't disputed, but if it was, it would mean that it should stay removed while we discuss it. The content I removed, and you restored, is the disputed content described by WP:ONUS. What do you mean by "demonstrated"? It's my opinion; if enough others agree, it's consensus, and if they don't, we discuss it. There's no secret test for promotional content; it's just up to our judgment. I'll go through and tag or remove uncited content. It's funny, I think overall you and I agree on what should remain in the article much more than we disagree, we just have different editing styles that didn't mesh smoothly here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I restored the awards that seem notable, since we didn't agree to remove them. The filmography and awards content isn't contentious, so as far as I can tell, WP:ONUS doesn't apply. I see it more as a question of style and preference, which is why we are having this discussion while the disputed content remains in place.

You do not have consensus, and thus...we are discussing it 🤷🏼

I agree on your last point, about editing styles 😉 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS doesn't say anything about whether content is contentious. It says "disputed content". I have disputed the content by removing it and subsequently arguing for its exclusion. That means if you want to re-add it to the article, the onus is on you to gain consensus for its reinstatement, not on me to convince you that it should be removed. The language is very clear. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's focus on the disputed content then. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Could you share your arguments for inclusion of the material still in dispute? And in the meantime, can you re-remove the disputed content until consensus is established? —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Which content is disputed? Is it all the statements you added cn tags to? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Some of that content would be fine if sourced. I'd say the disputed content is the actual content in this diff between the version I edited and the current version. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but what are you disputing about it? As you can see, I've been quite open-minded about your proposed changes so far, once I can understand your concerns, so please explain what further issues you have with the current state of the article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

That material is typical promotional language that sounds like it's from a press release or PR firm. I've explained my concerns several times already in edit summaries and on this talk page. Once more - WP:ONUS states that the responsibility is on you to gain consensus to include disputed content. I don't know how that could be any clearer. The material stays out until you've gained consensus on this talk page to reinstate it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku Look, I'm trying hard to both WP:AGF and avoid edit warring here, but somehow you seem to once again have missed the point of WP:ONUS - if material is disputed, it stays out until consensus is reached for its inclusion. Please do not keep just restoring. Wikipedia is built on consensus and you are ignoring a policy on how consensus should be reached. I will continue discuss the 'Awards' section with you but it is frustrating that you choosing to ignore this policy because it's inconvenient for you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ganesha811, you talk about AGF, and yet you're the one who rocked up and started using WP:ONUS like some kind of magic wand or cudgel, as if you could just invoke it whenever you don't like something on a page. In my years of editing, I've never encountered this situation. You may be right that the letter of WP:ONUS states that "disputed" content should stay off a page until consensus is reached, but that is not the way most editors approach content disputes in practice. This platform is built on collaboration, and your aggressive approach is not very collaborative at this moment. You can dispute whatever you like, but that's not a good reason to remove valid and referenced content from a page. The awards are just such material, so why don't you try discussing their merits/flaws here instead of simply removing them wholesale? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not magic or a cudgel, but is a policy, and one you've been ignoring. I've been on the other end of the stick before with WP:ONUS, where I was the one who wanted something kept on a page that others felt did not belong. I know the feeling. But like it or not, policies are policies and it's usually a good idea to follow them. We've never been very far apart on content here, but I mentioned WP:ONUS in my first talk page edit. I mentioned it because I figured you might not be aware of it. But you've just acted like it doesn't exist. Can you understand why I find that frustrating?

Back to content. I tend to remove standalone 'Awards' or 'Recognition' sections because they are magnets for the kind of spammy, resume-friendly trivial awards that spring up around actors, media figures, influencers, podcasters, and others who like to promote their own Wikipedia pages. Now, Chang is a serious journalist, so it's not as bad as all that, but I tend to think that awards should be mentioned in prose, not as lists, and usually only if the award itself is notable, like a Fields Medal. Regional Emmy awards? Fine. We already agreed that the Rational360 Influencer Index can go. Personally I don't think that the SPJ award or Shorty are very notable either, particularly as she didn't win the Shorty and the SPJ award is from the Northern California chapter, not the national organization. Still, if you feel they should be retained, I suggest we integrate them into the prose, rather than breaking them out into a separate section. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I had a vague notion of WP:ONUS, but if you remember, I initially thought it referred to new content being added. As I said earlier, if everyone who disliked content on any random page always invoked WP:ONUS, with the expectation that other editors had to demonstrate why the content should be retained, my impression is that there would be a lot more edit warring than there already is. I've rarely encountered anyone invoking this policy in as strict a manner as you, and I think that's for the best, as most issues can be resolved through dialogue rather than the "policy stick".

You're expressing your preference/dispreference, which is fine, but this just brings us back to what I said earlier about the heavy stick of WP:ONUS: "I don't like it, so I'll remove it, and the onus is on you to demonstrate why it should stay, until I'm completely satisfied". This strikes me as bizarre and absurd. What's the issue with a list of awards? They are a fairly common part of BLP pages, and I don't see why Chang shouldn't have one as well. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I explained my issue with the list of awards. You don't have to agree with me or like the policy; you can see it as a heavy stick; but it is policy and unfortunately you are still ignoring it. If you think it's bizarre and absurd, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. In fact, there seems to be some discussion there already - feel free to join in and cite this discussion as an example. I'm going to separate out the list into prose. I think that's a reasonable compromise. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku - I wonder if you could look at the current version of the article and explain your views on why a standalone 'Awards' section would be an improvement. The relevant awards Chang has won are all in the prose, and additionally the Emmys are listed in the infobox. That seems sufficient to me (though we could add the other awards to the infobox too, I suppose). In my opinion incorporating them in this way is more encyclopedic than listing them separately, which is resume-like and, as previously mentioned, leads to a tendency for new or COI editors to add minor or trivial awards. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Having a standalone awards section is fairly standard for individuals who have been recipients of awards, so I see nothing controversial in this case. The addition of minor or trivial awards can easily be monitored, so I don't see that as a meaningful argument. The Verifiability discussion shows quite clearly that not only have your reverts been misguided, but ONUS does not seem to apply to your particular quibble about an awards section.

Per WP:BRD, you should not have restored your preferred version of the page, and unless the Verifiability discussion turns in your favour within the next few days, I will be restoring the awards section pending some kind of agreement or compromise between us here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Fairly standard? Maybe. But can you argue it would be an improvement? Obviously the list in the article previously contained those kind of trivial awards, which had not been removed for years. My goal from the start has been to improve the article, and I think I have. It's currently in much better shape than it was, though there's still some material that needs cited (Wikipedia is never finished, after all). The re-installation of an 'Awards' section wouldn't ruin it, of course, though it would make the prose mentions redundant and they could then be removed. I just don't know why it's something you think would make the article better, but hey, go for it. There's no point in further back-and-forths over it. As for WP:ONUS, I think you're reading a bit too much into the discussion, but clearly there's room for reasonable disagreement. I was too inflexible in my prior comments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it's an improvement in the sense that it makes it easy for interested readers to toggle directly to the list instead of forcing them to read through the prose, if they are simply curious about her accolades. It certainly doesn't make it worse, does it? I disagree that a standalone awards section makes their mention within the prose redundant; it's simply a different presentation of the same material, similar to a discography section for a musical artist. Surely, that doesn't render mention of album releases within the prose redundant, does it?

I agree that you have improved the article, and despite my initial intransigence, I've been able to see that, and this is why I've mostly gone along with your edits. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we'd then be mentioning the same awards 3 times - in prose, in the infobox, and in a dedicated section, which in such a short article can give the appearance of promotionalism. But go with what you think will make the article best. I appreciate you mentioning that the article is improved, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss this at length with me in a back and forth that must have been as frustrating for you as it was for me at times. I have a better understanding of WP:ONUS than I did so I can take that away with me. Happy editing. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)