Talk:George Chiang

Real estate

Building consensus via refining subsequent edits is nice, but I feel its time for a more formal discussion about the topic. Does anyone have any objections to the real estate section as it is in the article currently that are unaddressed? Pinging relevant editors: @Jaskar96$3X, @Eric Rizoli, @169.197.125.235, @72.136.99.208, @99.238.8.103. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but unless an editor is confirmed as a sock and blocked, it would be poor form for me to exclude them from the consensus-building process. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

Concern about Real Estate Section — NPOV, SYNTH, and BLP Violation

I'd like to raise a concern about the current real estate section, specifically the single sentence that includes a quote from the cited source. In the original source, the eviction notice is issued by the new owner (a singular person). However, in the Wikipedia article, the name of the new owner has been replaced with the plural pronoun "they", which changes the meaning of the quote.

This subtle but significant wording shift implies that all three parties — including the majority owners (Chiang and Chung) — were involved in issuing the eviction notice. This is not supported by the cited source, which only attributes that action to the new owner.

This change raises concerns under several Wikipedia content policies:

NPOV (Neutral Point of View): The use of "they" introduces editorial bias by implying involvement of the previous owners in an eviction process that the source does not attribute to them.

SYNTH (Synthesis of published material): The sentence combines unrelated facts — the sale of a 1% stake and the subsequent eviction — in a way that draws a conclusion (involvement of all owners) that the cited sources do not themselves make.

BLP (Biographies of Living Persons): This policy prohibits unsourced or misleading implications that could harm the reputation of living individuals. Replacing the new owner’s name with "they" implies involvement by others without evidence.

There is no evidence in the cited sources that Chiang or Chung participated in or were aware of the eviction process. If the section's purpose is simply to note that they sold a 1% interest in the property, it should do so without implying their involvement in subsequent actions taken by the buyer.

I recommend revising the sentence to reflect what the sources actually state — that a 1% stake was sold, and that the new owner (singular) issued the notice of eviction. Whether the section should remain after that correction is up to consensus, but it must first comply with Wikipedia’s core content policies. 2001:56B:3FE4:E345:528:559B:2546:B74C (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I will discuss and build consensus with sentient editors, not LLMs. Please reply in your own words. Also how did you find this article? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

I used a proofing tool to help me clearly explain my point, which is that changing the name of the new buyer in the quote to “they” changes the meaning of the sentence and misrepresents what the source actually says. I wasn’t sure at first how that lined up with Wikipedia policies, so I looked into it and listed the relevant ones above. This isn’t about nitpicking it’s about sticking to what the source actually says. Even if an article implies something without clear proof, that implication shouldn't be considered as fact. As for how I found the article, my daughter studied one of his books at school, so we looked him up on Wikipedia and came across this section. 174.88.175.57 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I've changed to avoid the use of "they", but I would also ask that you read singular they. I employed the use of singular they in my edit as the new owner's name had not been introduced and was not relevant, substituting the name for a neutral pronoun made sense for flow. The deviation was not due to any form of "editorial bias", nor an attempt to imply anything outside of what the source strictly supports. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)