Talk:Ning Cai (writer)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
Neutrality
editMuch of this article seems to have been taken verbatim from PR material (possibly by someone acting on behalf of the subject - although maybe just a fan). This article should be re-written in more neutral language to bring it in line with WP:BLP, ideally by someone with no connection to the subject. I'm not contesting notability because I think the subject is probably notable enough in the context of the magic profession. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
- From the linked references, there is indication that there is a good mix of suitable print news media in the referencing. I thought it seemed still to be pretty neutral. Rolypoly xx (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I accept there are lots of cited sources, but I suspect most of them are merely media reports reproducing text from press releases near-verbatim. Examples of things that are problematic include frequent use of the description "mega escape", which is a clear neologism coined by Ning's PR people. The escape in question is similar in scale to many other stage tricks and shares elements with other escapes, such as the Table of Death. The term "mega escape" is meaningless nonsense. Also the claim that she is "Singapore's Only Professional Female Magician" must be regarded with caution - are you telling me there's not a single other woman in a population of 4.5 million who has worked in magic. I don't doubt that she is a very good female magician with a high profile in Singapore and she's notable enough to have a Wiki biography - it's just that the article seems to be an exercise in hyperbole.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I do admire young talents, particularly a beauty like her. However, a whole bulk of information provided in this Wikipedia page of hers can be easily discredited. Everything is wither misinformed or ill-conceptualized in publicity. She's nowhere near "the first professional female magician" in Singapore when there's already someone else who has reached those grounds long before the name Ning even pops out in the local magic scene. Go do a research on "Magic of Love" and "Magic of Lawrence & Priscilla" on the internet and you will see why Ning's PR team should be utterly embarrassed of itself. Do these publicists even track the magic scene? Sex sells, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.238 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is the "whole bulk of information" that can be discredited? Wiki requires proper referencing which seems to have been done unless all the references made are incorrect? So are you discrediting all the references as in accurate because many of the references are reputable media outlets? The key contention of "First Professional Female Magician" seems to be "professional". The fore-mentioned "Magic of Lawrence & Priscilla" refers to Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong & his daughter who perform magic as an evangilism tool for their mega church Faith Baptist Community Church and not on a full-time professional basis. Priscilla might have been Singapore's first female magician but not professional, whose occupation and living is derived from being a magician.TulipsInShoes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC).
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)