Talk:Ling Woo

Sourced content version

I've created what amounts to a new article. The article is referenced and every statement is cited. The references include a journal article, several textbooks as well as newspaper articles. So I believe I've established notability--Work permit (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

very nice upgrade! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Work permit (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

POV?

A lot in this article is stated as matter of fact when it is opinion. Adding opinion is not bad but it needs to be made clear by stating who thought what. Portions like "[soandso] considers [a fact] to mean [etc.]", "[thisandthat] was described by [...] to mean [etc.]" should be added, unless the publication quotes the writers/producers of the series. Interpretation is not the same as original intent. Was any of this this stated by the producers/writers or is this all the analysis of the publications? Is she really only a comment about Asians or also about selfishness, social estrangement and the stereotype of a lawyer? The sources are uniformly concerned with gender and race, and what is stated may be valid, but they read a LOT in this character. It would definitely serve the article to at least make clear what interpretation is by whom, in the article text. Hekerui (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes along those lines, will see if I can make more. As you point out, the sources are uniformly concerned with gender and race. I couldn't find any sources on Ling Woo that weren't, which is evidence that these issues are what make her wp:noteable.--Work permit (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's POV to even consider everything a matter of gender and race when Asian-American women are involved. Certainly some people do. That may be what Asian Studies professors are hired to do but it is not how everyone sees the world. Also, perhaps some white Americans in the era who did not have contact with Asian-Americans or see them on television may have had reactions that aren't as relevant today. I'd prefer to see all this race stuff sequestered in its own section so that other ways of looking at a comedy can have their own place. Perhaps, just an interesting character. The problem here with sourcing is that only the subset that views race as a paramount issue is writing about it. Just as you can't prove a negative, you can't source a lack of concern over race. Wikidemon (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You make good points. As background, there was a version of the article a few months back that described her as an interesting character. This version is worth looking at. It was essentially deleted, because it was not sourced and seen as "fancruft". So I looked for reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article. And all sources lead to the article as it's constructed. The framework for the article is not just built off of academics with an axe to grind. The popular press, specifically the Village Voice, the Boston Phoenix and the San Francisco Chronicle all have articles about the Woo character within the context of race and gender. More importantly, there was no significant coverage by the press that spoke of her outside that context. So to sequester "this race stuff" to another section would have required me to perform original research to restructure the source texts and dance around what they were really saying. Do you have some ideas on how do do this?--Work permit (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the version dismissed as "fancruft" has a more factual and encyclopaedic approach. Most of the current revision can be added to the previous version under the subtitle "Reception" or "Influence". The current revision is very well written and sourced, but it risks elevating the gender and racial interpretation of the character above the character. That is, the article reads more like it should be titled "Interpretations of Ling Woo". Thoughts? --Quadalpha (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you find any wp:rs that discusses the character without refering to the gender issues? Would be great if you could, I couldn't. I added just about everything about the character I could find that wasn't referencing the gender/race issues.--Work permit (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ling Woo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I will review this article. --Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• You don't need to link talk show. --Edge3 (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Work permit (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Fearsome, devouring, vicious..." should be "Describing (or an equivalent) her as "fearsome, devouring, vicious..." --Edge3 (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

. Done--Work permit (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of "Since that show, there had not been another Asian-American centered show or a main character who was Asian at the time the Ling character was created," try using "When the show aired, there had not been another Asian-American-centered show or an Asian main character at the time the Ling character was created." That might clarify some things a little bit. --Edge3 (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Excellent suggestion, it is much clearer. I made the change. Not sure if "When the show.." or "After the show.." works better. What do you think?--Work permit (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "When the show...", since that fits in with the usage of the past perfect "there had not been" --Edge3 (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, done as you say.--Work permit (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Nor is Ling above impersonating..." - Remove "above" since it really doesn't make sense. --Edge3 (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is confusing. How about "Ling will even impersonate the blind to get her way"?

Even better--Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Work permit (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to bring your attention to WP:LQ, which says, "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." I've tried to fix some of the punctuation errors, but I don't have access to your sources. Could you please address this? --Edge3 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Work permit (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article discusses the character's personality, but what about her role in the show? Brief statements in the lead and infobox aren't enough. --Edge3 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll dig up the references and address the above two issues in the next day or two--Work permit (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having problems using undeniably reliable sources to describe her role (as opposed to her personality). I could use a site like TV Acres, I've posted a thread on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--Work permit (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see TV Acres as unreliable, but let's see what the others are saying on the noticeboard. --Edge3 (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read this comment. You can go ahead and add the info in. --Edge3 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Question:  Done Is this what you were looking for?

Looks great!--Edge3 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can't access ref 8. Are there issues with the link?--Edge3 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-11-30/news/the-ling-thing/http It works for me. would you like me to "webcite" them?

I'm using an iPhone right now, so that might be part of the problem. I'll get on a computer and take a look later. --Edge3 (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The infobox says that she's a judge, but the sources say that she's a lawyer. This is a contradiction. --Edge3 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

she was originally a client of the firm, then a litigator, then finally a judge. I'll dig through references to make it clearer.--Work permit (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Work permit (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job with the article. I'm going to pass it for GA status now. --Edge3 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the diligence and hard work.--Work permit (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Context

There is virtually no sign of any awareness that this character was comic, in a comedy. All of the characters in Ally McBeal were heightened to a remarkable degree, with stereotypes and neuroses taken to their farthest extremes in order to create comedy. There should at least be some mention of this, I think! This show never pretended to be dealing in realistic characters or realistic situations. (Sorry--forgot to sign the page.) --TEHodson 05:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bizarrely subjective

This is perhaps the most subjective article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. What's with the using of admitted scholarly opinion as fact? This article should be re-written to reflect the fact that most of what is said here is taken from articles that editorialize on and attempt to analyze the character of Ling Woo. There are even strange sentences about the "normal angle" of shooting kissing scenes! There are many ways of shooting all scenes, including kissing scenes, and as a filmmaker, I'm bewildered at the assertion that there's a "normal" way that was violated by the director of the Ally-Ling kissing scene in order to emphasize her alleged "hyper-sexuality". Not only is there very little in this article that is anything but opinion, but the character traits and behaviors that contradict the main points asserted here are omitted entirely. For example, in the same episode where Woo uses the white cane, it is revealed that she has had an 8-year long, very tender and loving relationship with a resident of a nursing home, dances with him and the others in the home every week, and she then defends this man's eviction from the home. Why is there nothing about her kindness and generosity anywhere noted here? The article should be re-written--TEHodson 22:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)--TEHodson 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

As you point out, the sources are uniformly concerned with gender and race. I couldn't find any sources on Ling Woo that weren't, which is evidence that these issues are what make her wp:noteable. These aren't my views of the chracter, this is what the sources say. And these sources are not just editorials, they include peer-reviewed journal articles. On some of the specifics you mention, I'd support deleting the the angle of the kissing scene but I'd point that out that Larry Gross, director of the School of Communication USC Annenberg, felt it was notable to include in a book published by Columbia University Press. And I'd support adding her buts of kindness. Can you provide wome wp:rs for them? I can try digging up some more information as well.Work permit (talk)

Isn't it a bit unusual for essay writing to be considered a factual source? It might make more sense for there to be some sort of introductory paragraph that says something to the effect that "all of the below is the opinion of so and so, as set out in his thesis" or something like that? Something that makes clear that certain scholars were writing this stuff, but that it is subjective (very). I also have a problem with the fact that these so-called scholarly writings are not available for the readers of this article to peruse and see any context for. They are obscure, and though only two of them seem to be used, they are used over and over, giving undue weight and authority to these opinions.

I wouldn't call the sources essay's, they're taken from college textbooks and peer reviewed journals. The Owens article is available on Jstor and the Smith book is available on Amazon. I do agree that statements about her character could and probably should be prefaced by "so-and-so says", to distinguish them from actual things she does. Take a look at at my most recent edit as an example of that. If you like, I can do that for all the other "opinions".--Work permit (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My source for her acts of kindness are the episodes themselves, which I happened to be watching en masse while down with the flu. I followed a couple of links and ended up here, surprised that her character had its own page. When I read it I was even more surprised. Virtually all of her "evilness" is gone by Season 2 (she becomes Ally's friend, even participating in the group's sleepovers), and there are, for example, any number of people who make Ally fall from her airy fantasies--Ling was not alone in bringing her down to earth with a bump. And the fire-breathing act was reciprocated by Ally--so what does that mean in this more-than-slightly hysterical analysis of the character as Dragon Lady? What's most surprising is that I'm here writing this--I don't even like the show much, but it made me laugh when my head was thumping, and its whimsy helped rid me of my crankiness. But my scholarly nature is rubbed the wrong way by these opinions stated as absolutes. Not sure how much energy to put into making it better, but I'll ask, are the episodes themselves, if cited, considered a reliable source? Thanks. --TEHodson 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not a huge fan of the show either :). I only came to this article because there was a debate raging about a previous version. It was unsourced article. The debate ended with the artcile being all but deleted. I remembered the character had some notablity and so dug up all the wp:rs I could find to construct an article that's sourced. And that's the rub on wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If we put in "opinions" we'll need a source. If we don't, some other person (like The Red Pen of Doom) will come along and delete it. I'll try digging some new sources up and look over the old ones. I'm sure we can find something to give the article balance.--Work permit (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality banner

Can anyone comment on the neutrality banner, making suggestions for changes using reliable sources. Thanks--Work permit (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

encyclopedic style

Can anyone comment on the style banner, making suggestions for changes using reliable sources. Thanks--Work permit (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Status

Okay two big tags. I can see the point of them. Taking just the lead it says "Ling was a cold and ferocious Chinese American lawyer who spoke Mandarin and was knowledgeable in an art of sexual pleasure unknown to the Western world." The Madarin comment can be substantiated, but the rest appear to be subjective opinions presented as facts. This is apparent throughout the article. A article can not be classified as Good with these tags present and they appear valid. It should be relatively easy to fix, just add attribution as needed, but seeing as this has been brought up before it may encounter some resistance. Will give a chance for the regular editors to fix the issues or I may open a reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried editing the introduction. Did I catch your intent? If you think this is an acceptable tone, I'll edit the rest of the article. If not, it could you please give further guidance, or an example of how to set the right tone, so that I can get the tone right? Thanks.Work permit (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That is much better from a neutrality point of view and what I meant in my example above. I am still a little concerned about the third sentence. "Most famous" is a bold statement and the source used is probably not strong enough to back that up. Should probably add back in the "United States" as globally I doubt she was the most significant. The lead should also summarise the article, and this one does not contain much in the way of background on the character or plot. AIRcorn (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ling Woo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817145021/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/00/02/24/ASIAN_BABES.html to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/00/02/24/ASIAN_BABES.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)