Talk:Edison Chen photo scandal

Merge?

No matter how many citations we can probably get for this article, it is a better fit for the main Edison Chen article. Also, WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Detailed coverage of this scandal would be intruding his privacy, but we can simply summarize it in the main Edison Chen article to indicate that this scandal indeed took place. Pandacomics (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But includes alot of artists also, isn't better to put a summary on thier pages, then link them here all in one place? Dengero (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I agree to this because I'm so sick and tired of modding Bobo, Cecilia, Gillian and Edison's pages that I gave up editing/reverting altogether. If we can just summarise the event in thier pages, link the main article here, then I could monitor those pages normally like before and revert anything that goes outside the summarization. Then our front could be closed to just here and let those million anon IP's vandlise all they want here. Dengero (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not just a story about Edison and the female artists anymore, it is also about how the Hong Kong Police and the Hong Kong Judiciary System handles pornography on the internet. Ngchikit 10:20, 4 February 2008

Agreed, and there are actually more artists involved, just that the police in Hong Kong is still withholding information. Rayson 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. No not merge. This is a social issue. The police handling of the case adds to a long history of double standards where the police and the legal system does everything to protect local entertainment business at the expense of oversight in other areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICEBreaker (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in this case, there should be information on how this impacts the judiciary system in Hong Kong. Like a "Cultural Impact" section or something. Pandacomics (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Why korean and Japanese references when this is a Hong Kong news? Dengero (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will find some more Chinese links, but this news is hot in Japan and Korea as well. Rayson 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The news is very hot now in South Korea, but the Japanese and Korean sources are too much put on the article.--Appletrees (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename Title

The current title is Edison Chen's scandal of sex photos (2008). This is grammatically incorrect and should be retitled as Edison Chen's Sex Photos Scandal (2008).

I've renamed it "Edison Chen photo scandal". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Edison Chen caused a photo scandal a couple of years ago, so this title is not correct per se. The title should be any of these titles such as "Edison Chen's sex photo scandal", "The sex photo sandal of Edison Chen", or "Edison Chen photo scandal (2008)". He once said his most favorite sport is "sex", so Edison Chen's sex scandal is not adequate as well. --08:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs)

Out of all that, I only agree on adding 2008 to the title. Dengero (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did not realise he actually had another photo scandal. Is there an article for that scandal? If not, then I think this current title is fine. But if other editors want it to be specified in the title that this article is about the 2008 scandal, we can move the title again, this time to "Edison Chen photo scandal (2008)". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I read it from several Korean web portals, but you deleted the whole external links except English and Chinese sources. I don't know there is an English source for that. That photo scandal is about his photo revealing the lower part of his body. He really is a trouble maker. He is not that famous in South Korea, but Cecilia Cheung is. Supposed that this incident has nothing to do with her, Koreans might not care that much...Anyway, I agree to rename the article with 2008.--Appletrees (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Korean source

이어 “진관희는 2006년 잡지 인터뷰에서 가장 좋아하는 스포츠를 ‘섹스’라고 답했다. 2005년 3월 인터넷 상에는 하반신 노출 사진이 유출됐다. 당시, 본인은 아니라고 발표했지만 사이버 섹스 애호자다”라고 맹공을 퍼부었다.

• English source

--Appletrees (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I deleted the entire External links section. It only had one English-language site (which I believe was already used as a reference), the rest were in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. I absolutely think non-English sources can and should be used for footnote references, but as External links, non-English sites are not very useful for readers of English WP and should be avoided per Wikipedia:External links. But if the Korean sources verify some of the information on the article that need citation, please add them in as footnotes. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. What I meant was, is there a Wikipedia article for that other photo scandal? If not, then there's really no need to disambiguate this article by specifying "2008" in the article name. But like I said, if other editors feel strongly that it needs to be included in the title, then we can move the article name again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, here has no article on his previous scandal, so this article keeps at the title name. --Appletrees (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources

We need to vigorously cite sources and possibly remove content that we can't back up. This topic is about a developing sex scandal surrounding living persons, and we must be mindful of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons so that WP doesn't become liable to lawsuits because wrong or incorrect information was published. Write in a way to be as neutral as possible, and back up all claims. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, should we really be referring to these as "photos of the actors" instead of "photos of people resembling the actors" or "photos of people believed by internet users to be the actors"? The HK newspapers this morning are still calling them "疑似女藝人裸照" and refer to the people in question not as "the actors in the photos" but "卷入事件的藝人". (Probably cuz their lawyers made them write it that way.) cab (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good point. I'll edit the article later to be careful of those kinds of wording (unless somebody else gets to it before I do). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've corrected the "photos of the actors" wording. It looks like there was actually only one instance of that, and incidently it was added in by me. Hahhah, sorry about that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the phrasing "people resembling the ...." is equally misleading. It suggests we know these are NOT the individuals involved, and we do not know that. "Appeared to show ... " or 'people appearing to be ..." would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.30.164 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo needed?

I note that there may be concerns about WP:BLP and WP:COPY. However, due to the nature of the subject, by definition photographical, I don't know of many examples of articles more in need a photograph. OK, these are widely available on the internet, but it's not the same Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant by "but it's not the same", but yes, photos would be great for this article. But considering WP:BLP, I would rather err on the side of being too careful. I think all the stars involved have retained lawyers and the legality of the photos are still being questioned. But photos of them commenting on or reacting to this incident would be good. The Edison Chen apology video is readily available on YouTube. What's the policy on YouTube screen captures? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Negative. 1) no statement of the authenticity of the related photos. 2) Under the primary victim, Edison Chen's appeal, don't disseminate such materials.

I would suggest using Chen's "usual" photo just as that one used in his page if you think a picture is really needed. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

Seems to me that by mentioning the media's early statement (and the artists' representatives claims) that these were likely computer/Photoshop manipulations, but then not mentioning the media's later playing down of that position there is a danger of (1) losing credibility and (b) suggesting that this is, in fact, the case. I work in HK media and can tell you that editors in my organisation made the decision four days ago NOT to refer to images as photoshopped any more. It would at least be reasonable to show the change. This article is not currently balanced. It appears skewed towards the "fake" side.

You may be doing this for "legal" reasons, but - given the number of people who have seen the photos - it does nothing to advance the credibility of the article, and strongly suggests a desire to make things look rather better than they are.

It could also be pointed out that there are literally HUNDREDS of photo manipulations of HK artistes on the web that neither the police nor anyone else has cared about.

Also, the reference to subjects wearing "underwear" in one set of photos is misleading and suggests rather less is going on than is actually the case. All that can be seen is a bra. The lower regions of the woman are blocked by one person's head.

As of this comment, a note that despite the police allegedly catching the suspects, more photos were released today. Two of them are clearly fakes. Two seem to belong to an earlier sequence. One is dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And your reference to that is...? Dengero (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the appropriateness of giving a direct link. If you Google "kira" and "edison", you will see on the page that turns up another link to a page that has the new photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

here's the report [1] as the reference of 6 February, 4 new photos leaked. The same day of bringing lawsuit of the suspected origin. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article on the police checking to see if the pics are real: [2] We could probably use it for something like a "real or fake" section. Pandacomics (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember WP:BLP correctly, it says we should be conservative when making controversial claims, so I would rather err on the side of being careful. If any sources are claiming that the pictures are authentic, we can add that info in, but only if we also say in the content of the article who exactly thinks the pictures are authentic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is making a claim either way. No Hong Kong newspaper or media organisation is currently claiming them to be fakes, particularly after the sequence of events by which they were acquired had been established. On legal advice, the two main English-language paprers are using the formulation "purportedly to be ..." or "purported to show ..." At the moment, particularly among those who've seen the photos, it's a much more controversial claim to suggest they are Photoshopped than otherwise. Given the number of fakes circulating with no police action, still unacknowledged by police, there clearly IS a reason why responses and interests this time are different. If you wish to avoid the issue, it is wiser not to debate authenticity at all rather than make a summary judgement on one side and mention only the possibility they were faked. To do so makes the article look biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)