Talk:May Sweet

Hoax news of her death by the Irrawaddy

I've edited to remove all the political POV pushing by User:Okkar who seems to have an ax to grind against the Irrawaddy. Read his edit. My edits are backed by citations from Boston Globe and the Washington Post via AP. I've also provided a citation to the Irrawaddy on its claim that its sites were hacked, and the supposed editor Violet Cho left the Irrawaddy in 2009. Hybernator (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is like pot calling kettle black! You are the one who is pushing political POV by trying to paddle the Irrawaddy propaganda and removing May Sweet's own video message about the hoax. This article is about May Sweet not about the Irrawaddy, if you want to defend and post what the Irrawaddy is claiming, go edit the Irrawaddy. Okkar (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, I've just edited the Irrawaddy article. I'll let others decide if what I've edited here is propaganda. I provided all the citations from reputable sources. I suspect most reasonable would agree that the edits are not POV. Hybernator (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case can you explain the rationale behind removing the video message of May Sweet herself explaining that the news published by Irrawaddy was a hoax? Why is that? Okkar (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because it was referenced to Facebook, and wanted to include only the reputable sources. In one of my previous edits, I'd included: "The singer instantly issued a statement online that the news was a hoax, and accused the Irrawaddy of perpetrating the hoax either because she does not believe or know that the Irrawaddy's site was hacked." But you of course reverted that. Hybernator (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting The Irrwaddy is more reputable than the Singer herself about her death? This goes to show you clearly have COI issue on this to defend Irrawaddy. Its hard to assume good faith, when you blatently suggest that the Singer's very own video message is not credible. On another point, where does it say that Facebook is not a reputable source? What qualifies reputable source? Okkar (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're twisting my words and you know it. I never said that her video was not credible. For all I care, her attestation that she is alive can be put back in. The larger point is that she either doesn't believe or doesn't know the news that the Irrawaddy site was hacked. I'm comfortable that most reasonable people would find it NPOV. Hybernator (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"I removed it because it was referenced to Facebook, and wanted to include only the reputable sources." Were these not your words? If that is not suggesting the singer's own video and facebook is not credible then I dont know what is!! This is pure english my dear friend, you cant twist it as its written quite clearly. Did someone stole your account and wrote this?

Why should it matter whether she believe the Irrawaddy site was hacked or not? Especially since Irrawaddy has not yet disclosed any details of the hack (like how it hacked, who hacked it, logs 'etc.) apart from general comments and nothing specific, they even said they are not sure if it was done by the regime or those who dislike Irrawaddy. So why are you hell bent on proving Irrawaddy when you have got no evidence to support the claims. If this is not POV then I dont know what is! Any reasonable people who can think for themselves can see clearly where you are going with your edits. You are trying to use May Sweet article to support Irrawaddy's claim - you probably have personal relationship with folks at Irrawaddy for all we know. This is clearly a COI and excessive POV issue. Okkar (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is actually you who has a COI issue. You have said that you are current/former officer of military. I suggest you should refrain from editing politically sensitive pages just like Wikipedians with Wikipedia articles never edits articles about themselves. Soewinhan (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly in breech of Wikipedia neutrality policy. My employment status has nothing to do with my contribution to Wikipedia. You on the other hand was trying to use Wikipedia to promote political issues, which you have been consistently doing so. You are responding on this talk page instead of Hybernator clearly show that you and Hybernator are colluding together to get majority point of view. This act amounts to sock puppetry. Okkar (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

References

hoax news continued...

Okkar, this is what you wrote:

"On 12 March 2011, another news of her death was published by The Irrawaddy once again by reporter, Violet Cho, who reported the hoax news of the singer's death two years earlier. The hoax was published on both websites of The Irrawaddy, which are heavily laiden with pay-per-click advertisements. According to the hoax, May Sweet passed away in New York General Hospital and that funeral services would be held at her home in New York (May Sweet lives in Delaware). Within the hour of the hoax news was published, May Sweet's fans around the world took to facebook for confirmation of the news. Luckily, May Sweet was also online on the facebook and she instantly assured her fans that the news was a hoax. Irrawaddy later withdrew the hoax news from their websites and claimed unconvincingly that their website was hijacked by hackers. This claim was angrily refuted by May Sweet's fans around the world. May Sweet posted a personal video message of herself to the fans to ensure that she is safe and sound, and that the news from The Irrawaddy website was a hoax. The management of Irrawaddy refused to apologise to the Singer and her family for any emotional distress that may have caused."

• statements like "claimed unconvincingly that their website was hijacked by hackers"... And the citation you put up for that statement "http://www.irrawaddyblog.com/2011/03/announcement.html" clearly doesn't state that. To whom was it unconvincing?

• "The management of Irrawaddy refused to apologise to the Singer and her family for any emotional distress that may have caused." Another disingenuous statement. The very citation states "We apologize for any inconvenience and misunderstanding caused by the hacker's postings".

• "which are heavily laiden (sic) with pay-per-click advertisements"... Whose opinion is that?

This is the current version which I contributed:

"Another news of her death surfaced on 12 March 2011, this time on the web site of the Irrawaddy itself. The exile-run media organization's web site, which reportedly was hacked, published a few hoax articles, including an alleged feud between the Irrawaddy's editor and Aung San Suu Kyi as well as one on May Sweet's death. In an online column dated 14 March 2011, the Irrawaddy repeated its claim that its site was hacked, and that the supposed reporter of the articles, Violet Cho, was a former reporter who left the news organization in 2009. For her part, the singer instantly issued a statement online that the news was a hoax, and accused the Irrawaddy of perpetrating the hoax because she either does not believe or was not aware of the news that the Irrawaddy's site was hacked."

• You asked above "Why should it matter whether she believe (sic) the Irrawaddy site was hacked or not?" What's wrong with saying that "For her part, the singer instantly issued a statement online that the news was a hoax, and accused the Irrawaddy of perpetrating the hoax because she either does not believe or was not aware of the news that the Irrawaddy's site was hacked."? The fact that she accused means she either didn't know or didn't believe that it was hacked. What's wrong with that? She clearly has the right not to believe.

• The current text doesn't affirm the Irrawaddy's version: Note the use of words like "reportedly" and "claim" to qualify the statements. The hacked web site claim was reported by AP, and reprinted by the Boston Globe and the Washington Post. Check the reports, and point out if I have misrepresented these cited reports. The Irrawaddy's "claim" is also backed up by their own 14 March article. Nothing more. Nothing less. I don't have to add literary flourishes like "angrily" or "unconvincingly", which in my book are blatantly POV.

Most reasonable people will find that the current text provides NPOV content that is backed by reputable sources.

If you reflexively think somebody must be politically motivated every time he/she doesn't toe your line, or start accusing people of being sockpuppets, you'll have a tough time here at Wiki. Hybernator (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Such coincident that as soon as User:Soewinhan disappeared, User:Hybernator appeared again. When I response to User:Hybernator, User:Soewinhan answer instead. When I response to User:Soewinhan, User:Hybernator response instead. Despite this obvious sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting, I shall put my points across objectively.

First of all, AP, Boston Globe and Washington Post all syndicate off Irrawaddy website through RSS, so whatever Irrawaddy pushes out on their website, it will appear on AP, Boston and Washington Post after a few hours. This is box standard for most media sites. That's the reason why they all have almost the same text.

Secondly, Irrawaddy has not yet provided any detail proofs of the alleged hacking - there have been no real explanation or evidences offered, such as logs, proofs 'etc. in the news items you have cited. It was just Irrawaddy words against May Sweet, and it would be wrong for Wikipedia to choose sides and push out a version to protect Irrawaddy (which is what you are doing now).

Thirdly, the singer has posted a video message which explain the news of her death was a hoax, and since the article was about May Sweet it is perfectly credible to include this video link. of which you dismissed and deleted stating you only want to include information from credible source. As for your question regarding unconvincing reasons given by Irrawaddy, it is unconvincing to May Sweet fans and general public - not one single person who are not either employed by Irrawaddy or supporting Irrawaddy believed their version of the event, May Sweet's facebook page is awashed with messages from fans and general public who refuted Irrawaddy's version of the events. Even the Singer herself called on her fan to stop reading Irrawaddy. This fact can clearly been seen on May Sweet facebook pages. Feel free to take a moment to check them yourself.

On the note of "toeing the line", the same could be said about you since you are toeing Irrawaddy's official line and desperate to protect Irrawaddy from having bad reputation. If that is not COI then I don't know what is and hard to assume AGF. You may feel the need to protect Irrawaddy reputation because it is pro-democracy media 'etc., but you should not do this at the expense of Wikipedia.

As for the accusations regarding sockpuppets, you brought that one upon yourself. I am not the only who was suspicious about you and User:Soewinhan, a number of admins and other contributors do too and hence why they started an SPI against you. Okkar (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you choose to believe that the current text endorses the Irrawaddy's account, when it clearly doesn't, it's your right to continue believing what you believe. What part about "reportedly" and "claim" don't you understand? It's also your right to accuse AP of copying Irrawaddy's reporting. They very well might have. I've reported it as a claim, nothing more. Verifiable. I haven't made up anything about "unconvincing", or tried to pass it off with a citation that says the opposite. It's disingenuous, to say the least. The sockpuppet allegations were begun by you, just because more than one person disagree with you--a red herring to distract the issue at hand. I'm not worried. I'm sure the allegations will be investigated and taken care of. Hybernator (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You still have not explained why you deleted the video message of May Sweet and claimed that it was not from credible source. You have failed to convince why Irrawaddy's version of event was more credible than May Sweet's version? Why did you write in a manner which can be seen as protecting Irrawaddy rather than stating the actual facts? Anyone with decent understanding of english language can see the leaning of the article. If you are not trying to protect Irrawaddy, why are you refusing to include May Sweet's own video message about the hoax? The article is about May Sweet, not about Irrawaddy's promotion site. Okkar (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You're free to post her video if you so choose. I'm quite comfortable that anyone with good reading comprehension skills would not find that the current version is biased. (I'm quite certain.) So long as you add verifiable content without any of your POV flourishes, go ahead. (Btw, I read Burmese, so I know what's written on those sites.) You really ought to stop accusing someone of other motivations just because he/she doesn't agree with you. I haven't accused you as being politically motivated or sockpuppets. (You do NOT know my politics.) So long as you can defend the points with citations from reputable sources, feel free to contribute. I don't like to get into silly exchanges especially with Burmese contributors because there are so few of us. Collaboration, not confrontation. Learn to collaborate. Be even keeled, be fair. Go ahead and make your edit when it's unlocked. Hybernator (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting May Sweet's own video is not a verifiable content? Are you suggesting both english and burmese language posts on May Sweet's facebook wall are not verifiable content? Are you suggesting Facebook Page of the Singer is not a reputable source? These are the questions you have so far been avoiding to answer. How can we assume you are editing this article in good faith, if you are insisting to only push forward one side of the story, especially one that has been handed out by Irrawaddy. Okkar (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this so difficult. The current content already states that "For her part, the singer instantly issued a statement online that the news was a hoax, and accused the Irrawaddy of perpetrating the hoax because she either does not believe or was not aware of the news that the Irrawaddy's site was hacked." If you want to add her video to support the accusation, do so. But it is an accusation unless you have definitive proof that the Irrawaddy deliberately put out this story (to the detriment of their own reputation, and making themselves a laughing stock). Her video statement doesn't make it so. It's perfectly fine to use the video to state that she's denounced the Irrawaddy for the hoax. It's another to use the poor woman's video to make a definitive statement that the Irrawaddy perpetrated the hoax. One doesn't have to be politically motivated to see this basic point. Hybernator (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"she either does not believe or was not aware" <-- this can be considered as pure speculation. Since when Wikipedia started speculate a person's mind? This goes to show your intention to discredit the singer's statement. It is further proven by your removal of her own Video statement and replaced with article from Irrawaddy. This goes to show the bias in your edits. You are more interested in saving Irrawaddy from being a laughing stock than actually including relevant information in May Sweet's article. How can we assume AGF on your version? Okkar (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Maysweet.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)