Talk:Derek Han

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Derek Han. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 389 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

• 'Please Remove Later Years, these are all claims from an old interview, not a valid source, if anything it should be noted those were claims:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

V346720971 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Recently removed the names of the spouses from the article because they appear to be non-notable private individuals. While the information is cited, it may constitute undue personal detail and does not seem essential to the subject’s notability or biography.

If there are reliable sources demonstrating that these individuals are significant in the context of the subject’s life or public contributions, I am happy to reconsider and restore the information.

--V346720971 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

They themselves are not notable and are only mentioned in this article because of their connection to the subject, which is public information published in reliable sources. They are not used in this article to promote or establish notability of the subject. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification regarding the inclusion of spouses and other private individuals. I understand that their names appear in reliable sources and are mentioned only in connection with the subject. My concern is to ensure the article remains neutral and focuses on information that is significant to the subject’s notability.

Specifically:

• **Spouse names and trivial details**: Some details, such as where the subject met a spouse, seem to be minor personal information that does not add encyclopedic value. Summarizing this as "he was married twice" or similar might convey the essential facts while reducing unnecessary personal detail.

V346720971 (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. There isn't any guideline that defines when details about a subject's spouse are trivial. Again, the article stays on-topic; it does not discuss the spouses in great detail, except when relevant to the subject himself. Such as in the case of the $50 million that he inherited through his first wife. Which, again, is public information cited in reliable sources. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@V346720971, your use of markdown indicators like "**" for bold indicate you may be using an AI to generate these comments. Per WP:AITALK and WP:LLMCHAT, please communicate in your own words. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not, but thanks anyways ! ~2026-14695-71 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not but thanks anyways! Any feedback on my actual comment? Cheers! V346720971 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@V346720971: I will admit I find that very hard to believe given similar posts on your talk page, but, c'est la vie. Since you ask, my thoughts are in line with CurryTime: this seems to be a non-issue, as there is no valid reason provided to remove this content. It is normal to include this sort of information, and I do not think that the space given at present is enough to justify concerns over WP:PROMO or WP:DUE. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed that several statements in the article are presented as established facts but are sourced solely to interviews with the subject or with associates (friends, family, colleagues). Some of these statements appear to be subjective opinions or self-promotional, yet they are written as certain fact.

In order to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality and comply with guidelines on reliable sources and undue weight, I suggest that we review these sections. Potential actions include:

• Rewriting statements to clearly attribute claims to the original speaker.
• Removing content that is overly self-promotional or not independently verified.

Feedback from other editors is welcome.

--V346720971 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing promotional about this article; quotes by the subject or by various newspapers are properly attributed. So it's difficult to understand what your concerns regarding these are. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, and we may have different views on this content. I’m happy to leave it for other editors to weigh in and reach a consensus on whether any changes are necessary. V346720971 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)