Talk:Amos Yee

Anti-Christian angle not mentioned?

Just a point, isn't it an obvious omission in the article that Yee's video also included disparaging remarks about Christians? After all, that's what he is being charged for, and many news articles about the video also mention this. Granted it is primarily an anti-KY video, but to not mention the Christian angle at all seems odd. Currently its written like he is being charged for something totally irrelevant.[1][2][3]Zhanzhao (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

See that someone has added the Anti-Christian angle. Still an error inside though, the bbc link specifically said he was arrested for sedition, not defamation which was somehow included in the writeup..... Zhanzhao (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Selective reporting on the part of many foreign media outlets. Tayzhian (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Age

It would be good to have his birth date. I've seen sources in the past week post conflicting information, some say he's 16, some say he's 17. But a Jan 2012 source said he was 14 back then. New York Times in 2015 said 17, then changed to 16 - if so, the 2012 sources are wrong. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK

Someone nominate this before 6 March, Monday. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• The 2015 video section and the Response sections need working on. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Article, as it is now, is in good shape. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Overdetailed note about press coverage

Is it necessary to actually list down the publications that covered this news? That it is newsworthy is undeniable, so a simple line saying that it was picked by by the international press, with links instead of explicitly listing the individual agencies should be sufficnet. Now it just bloats the length of the article needlessly. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Zhanzhao: It's just one sentence. But if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and trim it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Its okay, not a big issue. I'm hands off actual article-editing for the moment for personal reasons. Though maybe British Broadcasting Corporation would be better written as BBC since its the name it's more commonly known by? The longform for the rest are fine since there's an ABC in the US as well. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Done! SageGreenRider (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

About the Petition

This is about the line under "Responses about the appeal. Considering that even though it was covered by the news, it was not particularly notable. More importantly Amos was since released on bail, its a little confusing to leave it as it is. Not sure how to improve on it though. Any suggestions? Zhanzhao (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments "It was covered by the news" and "it was not notable". These seems contradictory to me. The definition of notability is coverage in reliable sources. Can you clarify? Thanks! SageGreenRider (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, it just that the petition is an even smaller footnote to the whole saga, plus it feels irrelevant now that the reason for the petition is now moot. As mentioned, I am not asking that it be removed, just rewritten better. Zhanzhao (talk).

OK. I moved the bail part after the petition part, putting both in the "Response" section. Is it better? SageGreenRider (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• @SageGreenRider: - I'm going to move it back. All the legal stuff should be in one section, makes it easier for people to find the relevant details. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Heller

Nathan Heller's comments have been given undue weight in this article. Do note that Nathan Heller wrote an opinionated piece in The New Yorker, not a factual news article. I've shortened the statement, but it probably needs to be even more concise or even removed. --2001:630:12:1008:8CF1:AE3E:6E00:F0B8 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've changed my mind and deleted the entire first part of Nathan Heller's comments. He has already been quoted in another instance at the bottom of the page and that is fair enough for a neutral point of view. There is no need to overquote since Nathan Heller is hardly a guru or expert in child psychology or criminal law, but he is simply giving an opinion. He deserves no more space in this article than the celebrities. Furthermore, his views are fringe theories - I've yet to see anyone else express their desire for the subject to run the country. --2001:630:12:1008:8CF1:AE3E:6E00:F0B8 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• I restored one sentence. Thought it would be good to describe the videos. What do you think? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that's better thanks it sounds rather neutral now. I thought it was too much credence lent to a person who isn't an academic expert in this field, but merely a professional writer who writes his opinion on a large range of topics. Everyone can have an opinion on anything; Nathan Heller is not any better informed in the subject area, just that he expresses himself better because he is a writer. --2001:630:12:1008:199A:4695:DCB4:8DE9 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The 2 times Nathan Heller appears in the article each address different points, my opinion is that its okay. Only nitpick is that we shouldn't need to use his full "Nathan Heller of The New Yorker" even on the 2nd mention, since he was fully identified in the first instance, it just "reads" badly. Alternativelu but more tricky might be to just group it together somehow. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• The rationale for using his name and the organization is that his article was a column or opinion piece. Also, I don't personally assume readers read the entire article at one shot and from top-down. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly my point. Nathan Heller isn't a subject matter expert and should not be quoted to address points. He just has his personal opinion and happens to express it better than others. Content coming from him is similar to those coming from say, the celebrities and hence he shouldn't be given such prominence. This is in no way similar to the credence from a published scientific journal or paper on liberalism, etc. He can be used to present a "for" or "against" opinion, but only once, like the others. --2001:630:12:1008:199A:4695:DCB4:8DE9 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as its clearly put across that its an opinion piece, and written as an opinion and not statement of fact, it should be fine. I see another editor has been removing the parts about how local celebs have weighed in on this; ieven though the source was a news piece rather than an opinion piece, its still talking about their opinions on the matter, so that's fine as well to have opinions from both sides. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you still don't get my point. I'm not saying it's not fine in that it has a bias. I'm talking about the weight of opinions here. Wikipedia isn't a place where we seek to provide equal coverage of both sides, but rather, reflect the general environment. If one opinion is covered more in the media (local and overseas), then it should reflect as such. And the difference between me and the other editor is that I only requested that Nathan Heller's piece was only referenced once for opinion (I'm perfectly fine with the other factual statement), while the other editor didn't even allow the views of local celebs to be referenced even once. In a hypothetical example, if there are three sources providing "favourable" views and only one providing an "unfavourable" view in the general media, then it should reflect as such here in a 3:1 ratio as far as possible; instead of quoting the "unfavourable" view multiple times to make it appear as though it holds more weight, and vice-versa. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Parody continues...

Hey guys, how about this, looks like the Parody continues: Man strikes Amos Yee as teen arrives at court - --Never stop exploring (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• It'll be added, if it's not already. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reminder on WP:OR and WP:RS

I have reverted several of @Stochas:' recent edits on the basis of core content policies WP:OR and WP:RS, which should be read. Simply put, content not backed up by any source, or content backed up by unreliable sources, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Please also read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

• There are many instances of original research not backed up by the sources. "only child" [4] / "slammed his head against a table and the floor" [5] / anything regarding "grassroots leader" [6]
• As far as I know, The Online Citizen and Mothership are not reliable sources. In [7], the source cited is The Online Citizen. In [8], the source cited is Mothership. The only permissible use of unreliable sources is if they directly interview a subject in the article, like how the The Online Citizen interviewed Yee's mother. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliability depends on context. In the context of Amos Yee's case, which involves politics, state-controlled mainstream media's reporting has been one-sided and unfair as can be seen from the case of ST's false reporting that Amos Yee's mother made a police report against her son and the use of local celebrities to paint Amos in black. Also worth mentioning is how a letter to ST forum from Singapore's kindness movement urging restraint has been refused publication [9]. However, due to the lack of press freedom in Singapore, there wouldn't be an alternative point of view if we do not accept TOC and TRE as reliable sources. There are always two sides two a coin, to remain neutral, due weight must be given to the other side. Deffydaft (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources must still fit Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources though. TOC in't that bad, as they do control their content and even occasional post retractions on their content when mistakes were identified. However, TRE, per their "about" page, proudly proclaims themselves to be a site where anyone is free to post anything and claims to have no editorial control over content, which is why almost everytime its been brought to WP:RS for consideration, its been repeatedly rejected. Mothership.sg is a relatively new site so I have no comments. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• As I said, reliability depends on the context. Wikipedia does not forbid citations from social media news site. As long as the source has been identified and attributed properly, I see no reason to bar TRE as a third party news source, especially when the only version of news coming from the so-called "reputable sources" is that of the government's version. Also, I do not see you holding the same "high" standard against ST as a news source when it has been proven time and again to be publishing fabricated news stories such as the false accusation it made on Yee's mother and neither did it post a retraction to be deem as responsible news source in the context of this case. Deffydaft (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't pay attention to what happned, but from what I just read in the ST report, Amos' "out of control actions" were making her worried for his safety, so she made a police report was made by her "to the effect"; which can be taken to meant his actions was still the catalyst for her making the report. Compared to TRE's claims about a purely imaginary foreign family who made a report during one of the recent disturbances, thats way out in another league. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• From what I read, the news article you cited came from TRS, not TRE. Given their limited resources, it is surprising that they only got tripped up by one case. I am not sure whether that was a deliberate action by the editor or a mistake by attributing from a source with bad intent. As for ST, it has all the editorial resources at its disposal to write a factual, unbiased report, but instead, it chooses to take an editorial slant. Well, so much for reliable news. Anyway, thanks for keeping up with the conversation and have a good day! Deffydaft (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The notion that there wouldn't be an alternative point of view if we do not accept TOC and TRE as reliable sources. There are always two sides two a coin, to remain neutral, due weight must be given to the other side. is totally flawed. We are not required to lower our standards for reliable sources just to publish what "the other side" are saying. WP:NPOV does not mean 50% positive and 50% negative. In most cases, that would be false balance, read WP:GEVAL from WP:NPOV. If you don't like Singaporean media, use international media. I believe within the past week, Australian Broadcasting Corporation [10] and Xinhua [11] had articles on Yee. Those are the alternative sources. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since when did I say I don't like Singaporean media? Singaporean media includes TOC and TRE. Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Xinhua are foreign media and therefore Hobson's_choices as far as the depth of coverage on Amos Yee is concerned. Your point on WP:GEVAL is only valid, where opinions are presented. Missing facts like Amos Yee refusing bail as he felt the bail conditions are ridiculous is not a POV, but words that came from Amos himself in his own blog, and which was then subsequently reported on alternative media where the mainstream media has failed to play its part in presenting both sides of the story.Deffydaft (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hobson's choice is not a core content policy in Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is absurd that you would apply it to local media only as compared to all reliable sources (including foreign media) as a whole. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In a separate discussion, the notion that Straits Times did false reporting is quite false. Straits Times [12] wrote that Yee was declared by his mother to be beyond her control ... made a police report to that effect. Meanwhile, the Online Citizen, [13] who interviewed Yee's mother, reported that the reason for filing the police report was because at that point in time, Amos had just published a vulgar image despite her objections and she feared for Amos’s safety. Straits Times was right. She couldn't control him, he uploaded the picture, so she had to make the report. Online Citizen also said she asked on where her son could be put through counselling. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that she needs a third party to guide her son because she can't control him herself. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. False Deceptive reporting. The police report she made was not just to declare that he is beyond control but, more importantly, to apologize to the nation and seek counselling help for her son (see photo of police report[14]). The way ST article is represented, makes it seems like Amos Yee's mother had filed a police report against her son. So, my argument that we need TOC and TRE as alternative sources in the current context is clearly demonstrated in this instance.Deffydaft (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Deffydaft, seeing that you are a new editor, I would advise you to familiarise yourself with what makes a reliable source, specifically, focusing on what is deemed a dubious source. You should then be very clear on what is/is not allowed. Nothing prevents you from trying to allow these sources used per Wikipedia's policy via the [reliable source noticeboard], but those weighing in will quote these policies back to you when objecting it. Also, though I have not read the physical paper for a while, Straits Times does make corrections/retractions, even on their physical paper, usually on the third page IIRC. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't really understand makes it seems like Amos Yee's mother had filed a police report against her son. The police report was certainly about her son. But did the Straits Times report that she wanted her son to be arrested? Absolutely not, provide me a quote if you can. People are objecting to things which aren't there! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Negative opinions about Yee's 2015 video

I'm going to explain my revert of Deffydaft's removal. All the content removed are from newspapers of Singapore and Malaysia - they pass WP:RS - and are negative opinions regarding Yee's video. Deffydaft claims that these are "fringe theories". To that, I question, where is the proof that a positive opinions of Kuan Yew is finally dead! is mainstream? Any sources? Just take a look at the YouTube likes and dislikes. 3,905 likes, 16,908 dislikes. Clearly, liking the video is the fringe here! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Disliking a video does not translate to disliking a person. Also, you have not demonstrated that the specific opinions expressed by MediaCorp artists on his parents are mainstream opinions. You have only proven that the video is unpopular. That's all. I will follow up to address your other comments when I have time. Deffydaft (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Those were properly attributed opinions from a news article. It is being treated as such and is being written in a way that is not confused with a factually statement nor reflective of mainstream opinion. There is no mainstream opinion per se because opinions about the subject have been divided. Same as how other opinion writers from overseas had their opinions included in the writeup; those were the writers' opinions, not mainstream opinions. If you are saying we should remove any reported opinions because they cannot be proven to reflect mainstream thinking, even though they have been clearly and properly attributed per wiki policy as opinions of those same people, those would have to go too. And thats not something we want to do. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• There is still nothing proving that the opinions removed are actually "fringe". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Deffydaft, as a single-purpose account, I'd urge you to seriously consider acquainting yourself with Wikipedia's policies before editing. If not, there is only going to be more unnecessary conflict arising from what Wikipedia is versus what you think Wikipedia should be. That would be better for everyone in the community. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a cause, no matter how just you think it is, but a place which strives to have a neutral point of view and reflect the general environment. If you do continue to edit in this way, we will have no choice but to request for admin intervention and semi-protection. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Article getting bloated

I know this is big news night now, right here, but I feel that we might need to trim some fat off the article, especially the trivial details. I.e. Do we really need to know the name of his grandmother (which I removed) or even the exact prizes he won from the competition? Zhanzhao (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the awards he won is important because they demonstrate Yee's precociousness, as well as his predilection for acting and publicity at an early age. Saying that he won awards without mentioning what the awards are would leave readers wanting more information. Other parts of the article could be summarized. Stochas (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't talking about removing the award or what the award is about, but possibly removing the line about the prizes he took home from winning the award. Indeed, many parts need summarizing - but I guess this can be done after the case has ended so we know which parts have become redundant (i.e. parties repeating the same arguments in court on different days, for example, need not be repeatedly written here)Zhanzhao (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As a comparison, the article as it stands right now is even longer than J. B. Jeyaretnam and Chiam See Tong's entries. But with all the new details that keeps flooding in, probably no choice but to lep it keep coming (as long as not Wiki rules are violated), but it will be good to do some pruning after the case ends to trim the fat. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity of Claims Being Written As Statement Of Fact

Also another thing to point out is that many parts of the article which can only be sourced to Amos himself or involved parties are being written as if they were fact i.e. the part about him being asked to leave church was a statement from Amos himself but not made clear in the article. Such that when the catholic church refutes that statement, the article as it is right now, makes it seem as if the church was covering up when for having really asking him to leave (unproven) and it is just two claims by 2 different parties (Amos and the church). Examples like this (statements by parties written as if they were fact) should be carefully treated to ensure the article stays neutral. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection From Harassment Act

Original text as I read it:

"A third charge, later stood down, was under the Protection of Harassment Act, which accuses him of "making an online video containing remarks about Mr Lee that offended people who viewed it."

"Of" is not correct. It should be "From". See this :

http://en.wikipedia.org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/wiki/Protection_from_Harassment_Act_2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.200.239.210 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Split

A case should not be extensively covered on the main biography of Amos Yee. Otherwise, it would be disproportionate coverage. I hereby propose splitting the "2015 controversy" section into a separate article, maybe Public Prosecutor v Amos Yee or some other appropriate name. Feel free to discuss. HYH.124 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually the subject is infamous mainly because of this case or actions leading up to the case. I'd instead suggest renaming the page to that of the case, with the other bios and other info about the subject as a subsection.

Regardless, as mentioned earlier, I'd think this article is due for some trimming: Its too overly detailed, and much of it can be summarized. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao: Yes, but he is already a notable person for his biography to be included on Wikipedia. Also, you cannot doubt that he isn't notable before this incident. HYH.124 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability before the video is arguable. After all, it was only after the case that an article about him appeared. A good comparison is Roy Ngerng - made the news in some way but is only famous for one incident. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

December 2015 Investigation for Allegedly Offensive Religious Remarks

Just saw these [15], [16], [17] and [18] while researching for an unrelated wiki article. Wondering if this is notable enough to be included.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016

i would like help improvce this page

2404:E800:E60B:58E:303E:FD0E:C38D:31D3 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please specify what exactly you would like to be added/changed/deleted in the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sub-heading about false molestation allegations against Bailor

This heading, for the benefit of those coming in to help with Third Opinion

Just like to point out Yee himself had admitted that the allegations were false, made in an attempt to troll the media. This admission was covered in multiple sources including Yahoo, TheOnlineCitizen, Vulcanpost among others, and even in his own blog where he admitted it. All these sources considered, cover primary, secondary, and even tertiary sourcing categories. So now that verifiability should no longer be an issue, I would instead point out that the old heading is a BLP issue as the heading is misleadingly unfair to the bailor, by not pointing out it was a false allegation while leaving his name there. (PS: Correction on my edit summary on the main article. The term to search for is "Amos Yee Trolled Vincent Law", not "Amos Yee Trolled Francis Law". Here's a few examples where the headings also clearly pointing out false/disproven allegations.

• Brian_Banks_(American_football)#False_accusation_of_sexual_assault
• Dewey_Bozella#Alleged_offense_and_wrongful_conviction
• Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing#Richard_Jewell_falsely_implicated
• Donald_Marshall,_Jr.#Wrongful_conviction.

Where there is no question about the truthfulness (or in the case, lack thereof) of the original allegation, stating that it is not true should be perfectly acceptable and fair to the wrongly accused. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted to the long standing version. We not supposed to comment whether something is a false allegation or a true allegation, unless a court has decided / sources have unambiguously reported it as such. That hasn't happened here. In addition, Amos apparently withdrew his apology and later claimed that Law "technically molested him". Personally, I would remove that entire section. It's simply WP:UNDUE, tabloidy and in any case, allegations are not supposed to be there on Wikipedia at all (unless a whole lot of sources have reported on it and it has created some enduring news coverage, beyond WP:NOTNEWS). Btw, the examples you have given are cases of wrongful convictions, not allegations. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing#Richard_Jewell_falsely_implicated was not a conviction, the guy was falsely implicated and later exonerated. In this case, the allegation was false because Yee made the allegation, retracted it, and then widely covered by many sources. Since you were previously adverse to local MSM, here's a brief selection [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. In fact, the article has been pretty light about the whole issue, as the asian correspondent link, describing Yee's post, states Yee going into detail about how his objective was to cause reparable damage to the bailor - which has not been mentioned in the article - an important omission as its unexplained in the current article. Rather, to remove this whole section would be arguably whitewashing, considering the wide coverage.[28][29][30] Its gone way beyond local interest/trivia/news. In this case, BLP (for the bailor) is more important here than the debatable editorialization claim, so I'm reverting it. I've also reached out for a Third Opinion, so please hold off on your revert for now. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you not to edit war. We keep the status quo till we have consensus (See WP:BRD). This is not an egregious BLP violation and BLP goes both ways for Amos and the bailor - the current heading is at least neutral in this sense and it has existed since a year. The scale of the incident you quoted differs from what happened here. In the case of Richard Jewell it was an exhaustive trial by media and he launched libel suits to clear his name. In the case of Amos Yee, it was something he said which led to news coverage for the next day - that's it. A lot of the sources you are quoting as essentially reprinting the same stuff reported by local news media. (And many of the sources are not reliable - I mean this Yahoo Taiwan is sourcing it from Storm Media Group which apparently uses "States Times Review" for sourcing. I still maintain that this whole section is WP:UNDUE and I would simply prefer to remove the entire thing. It is a good example of WP:RECENTISM and I don't see any continuing coverage on this issue anyway. Celebrities say stuff all the time which causes news-spikes and none of that is mentioned in so much detail. (The level of detail btw, is a general problem with this article). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources I quote shows mainstream interest outside of Singapore. It is covered by other non-Singapore sources like TheDiplomat, Asiancorrespondent and The Star among others. In the case of the Yahoo, the fact that they even bothered to include it in syndication speaks is what makes it stand out, rather than the actual content. I don't see how you think this is BLP against Yee since he has outright admitted, (with the admission reported at multimple channels) that the allegation was false. I agree that the article as it is now is that it is overly detailed about the coverage of the trial itself (In fact I pointed it out earlier on another issue) but that is only with regards to going into the nitty-gritty details of the trial, notable incidents should still be listed at least.

Actually, taking a step back, the false accusation and the assault incidents are not even part of the trial or critical to the understanding of it, and should be separated out from it. As a compromise, I'll remove the bailor's name from the heading while leaving the "False" wording out. Still don't think its fair in terms of BLP to the bailor though, considering the admission of wrong-doing on the part of the subject. As you pointed out[31] in the Asian Correspondent link you provided, Yee did retract his apology. But re-read that whole link article - it was actually talking about how Yee's accusations affected his bailor. Quoting from the article, That is the beauty of a false allegation right? It creates doubt; and no doubt many a parent will now have second thoughts about having their child continue to work with Mr Law.. This is unquestionably a BLP issue affecting the bailor. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with separating it out. The problem is not that other media have reported it (and in any case, the international coverage has been very limited) but that it is a news-spike which did not receive any coverage after it happened. There are similar incidences which have been reported in international media such as these articles in Sydney Morning Herald, Guardian and CNBC. We don't add it to Lee Hsien Loong because these are essentially allegations which have received no coverage beyond the news-spike. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously comparing news about Lee Hsien Loong/family and news about Amos Yee? Thats a bit unfair - world leaders make the news over something as inane as what they had for lunch.[32]. Whereas in the case of Yee, he is only a Cause célèbre due to the cases, and any coverage had only been about what news writers deemed related to the case. Which in this instance, it directly co-relates to why Law was no longer Yee's bailor, which led to Yee being remanded. Which has further implications, as the days remanded counts towards his case for political asylum. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on molestation allegations relevance and section title):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Amos Yee and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Zhanzhao considers that the article's section on molestation allegations should be clear in pointing out that these were false, per WP:BLP. Lemongirl considers that the status quo title should prevail, but also questions the section's relevance (and proposed its removal from the article). It seems to me that this information is relevant as it pertains to the case that is the central focus of Amos Yee's article. We do need to consider WP:BLP since both of the individuals in question are alive, and clearly their reputation is on the line here. In this sense, I agree with Zhanzhao. However, I value Lemongirl's statement on WP:RECENT, and do recommend that this always be kept in mind with "celebrities" that seem to rely on scandals for notability. Moreover, I also agree with Lemongirl's assertion that "The level of detail btw, is a general problem with this article". This section, in particular, is excessively descriptive, so I would recommend it to be made more concise per points 2 and 4 on WP:NOTNEWS (i.e., material should not read like a news report). As for the section title, it seems awfully unnecessary to have any mention of the bailor in it at all; I recommend that the section be titled "Molestation allegations" (the term "allegation" covering the point that this is a claim and not necessarily true). Thank you for requesting a third opinion. Have a great week!-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 23:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MarshalN20 for the contribution. Per your suggestion, I'll make the most straight-forward change first, removing mention of bailor/Law from the heading. As for the level-of-detail note, it actually permeates the whole article, not just this section, (as I previously mentioned). The main culprit being additions of individual quotes from practically any and everyone who wrote about the case, in many cases repeating similar sentiments across separate writeups rather than grouping/summarizing them, overuse of verbatim quotes and plain lack of summarizing. I.e.

At 17 April pre-trial conference, Yee's police bail was converted to court bail of the same amount, while anyone, and not just his parents, was now allowed to post bail. Yee was taken into remand in Changi Prison for the duration of 17 to 21 April 2015 because no one in that time period posted bail, despite the bail amount only needing to be pledged instead of being physically deposited.

can be replaced with

Yee was remanded from 17 - 21 April because no one posted bail for him.

...without losing the essence of the writeup. Will take a lot of work though, scrubbing through the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zhanzhao: Thank you as well. It's going to be a difficult task. Please do keep in mind the WP:SUMMARY guideline; however, remember that this does not give free reign to editing without consensus. If any of your future edits in the article are challenged, do make sure to work with your fellow collaborators. And, as always, keep in mind the third opinion and Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is here to help work out any problems. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 07:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you MarshalN20. I am fine with the current heading. My personal preference is to reduce the content and integrate this into the existing content instead of a subsection, (as gives undue weight to an incident). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Blogger, not activist

Hello, the term activist was inserted by an anon IP, amos? Some news may attribute him wrongly as activist but almost all news I read mentions himas just a blogger, big difference. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.99.159 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Just commenting, but it does seem that Yee has not done anything that would define him as being an activist. What exactly has he done that would classify him as an activist? Other than that link, I've only seen him being referred to as a blogger. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have seen the word activist being used, especially after the first conviction, such as in HKFP [33], [34] AFP article reprinted in Japan Times,Yahoo Singapore, The Star and this comment in the New Yorker. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said, its just a curiosity I noted. In any case, HKFP has always had a subtle, post-Occupy Hong Kong slant [35], while the New Yorker comment comes under commentary/opinion piece rather than news for RSS/verifiability purposes. The AFP piece is the only one that identifies him as a blogger without any baggage, but is done in the way that brings back my original question: He is identified as an activist, but what has he actually done that classifies him as one, per the definition of activist. I believe this is true for the HKFP articles as well, from what I've read so far. I've friends who have seen him at some rallies, but not to speak up, but rather to get footage for his youtube. In fact, he's noted more as someone activists want to help (Google "Amos Yee Activist"), rather than being an activist himself. He's definitely the poster boy for free speech, but I don't think he's personally actually really spoken up FOR free speech. Again, not a debate for a change in the article, just my thoughts "filed for posterity" in case the debate actually becomes serious. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that a misleading report by one Afp reporter (out of hundreds of others) should not be taken as fact. Need to remove that description. 219.74.87.159 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim video/posts and charges

Glaringly, to date, the article just barely mentions the videos and posts which Yee disparages Muslims, which was part of what he was charged and found guilty off? Considering that sentence, at 6 weeks, was even heavier than the first? Zhanzhao (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Chronological order

@Zhanzhao: I have reverted it back to the original status quo of chronological coverage. BLP is very clear on the fact that we don't give undue focus whether by creating a new section or the depth of coverage. This is will require consensus to change. I can post at the BLPN and ask for opinions if you want. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually there was no new section created or any additional depth of coverage, I was merely moving existing writeup to a more structured format as per other such articles, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. I figure that now that the hype has died down, during this lull period, its a good time as any to do some tidying up. Anyone researching about Yee's case would find those 2 incidents totally irrelevant to that scope of research, the way the article is currently structured. But lets see where the discussion goes at BLPN after you post there. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cancellation of invitations to talk

@Zhanzhao:, the part on Yee being uninvited from Mythcon 2017 should be put on hold per WP:RECENTISM. Also, if this is notable, you can wait for a secondary news source before adding it in. To me, this whole section seems trivia, and you had complained before that the article is getting bloated. In any case, I am not going to revert your edits, assuming good faith on your part.Jane Dawson (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Jane Dawson (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jane, I actually consider the Mythcon bit to be an accompanying part to the more important un-invite from Harvard, which was more notable. Its more than recentism, it is very related to the whole nature of Amos Yee's infamy, as Harvard invited him to give a talk on Free speech. Even the title of his cancelled talk was called Jailed for Dissent, which encapsulates what had happened to him. That's why I just wanted to keep it in shortened prose. It was Amos himself who vocally claimed that what happened with Harvard is similar to the situation with Mythcon, so the Mythcon bit is important in that context. What I considered "bloat", was the amount of detail given to the nitty-gritty coverage of the the cases. Its almost as long as the Watergate Scandal article, which is quite incredible ..... Zhanzhao (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "it is very related to the whole nature of Amos Yee's infamy". The two convictions are not sufficient to capture the above? What is such a big deal to be uninvited for a speech? Sorry, I don't really get your point. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I should more correctly say infamy relates to the case, rather than Yee himself. Amos Yee is a proponent of free speech, while the Singapore government charged him for videos he made. Per the article, in the case verdict section, HRW and Amnesty international specifically mentioned how Yee's rights to freedom of expression was being punished/suppressed. The group from Harvard that originally invited Amos Yee was the "Harvard College Open Campus Initiative", who are advocates of free speech.(link); as mentioned, the talk was named "Jailed for Dissent", which is directly related to the case that makes up the bulk of the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

So are you trying to highlight the irony in this? Sorry, but I fail to see how it pass the test of WP:notability for a BLP given that there is lack of press coverage for the Mythcon bit. Jane Dawson (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, actually I'm just to updating his status. His original invitation to Harvard was mentioned on quite a few sites when it first came out, I wanted to updated it back then but had been busy (as you can tell from the "dead period" in my contribution history), by the time I was free, he got uninvited, so I just lumped the updating of the invite and uninvite together. As mentioned, the Mythcon bit was Yee himself pointing out the reason for the uninvite, as related to both events, just for context rather than leaving it unexplained. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a not newspaper nor is it facebook where we "update his status." Not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"Updating his status was a bad choice of words", more accurately its just updating with additional information about the subject, backed by reliable sources. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The content with Yee's speculations about why the Harvard student club cancelled him is exactly that. The club has not confirmed why they cancelled him that I have found stated everywhere. Not sure we should keep this at all but ... the Harvard name is the Harvard name. The "Mythcon" stuff is about an event hosted by Mythopoeic Society which is of marginal notability if any. I looked for sources outside of Singapore gossip discussing Yee's ideas about age of consent and haven't found any. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• In my view the age of consent and "controversy" about that should not come in without an RfC as this is a BLP issue. But folks who want that content should try to explain here why they believe this is encyclopedic, at this time, given the sources that we have. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay I admit I am a bit confused here, as this is not the first time BLP was mentioned. How is it BLP when the subject himself was making that statement (which is easily verifiable from his personal YouTube), and it was being reported by a secondary sources? Or am I missing a link somewhere? Zhanzhao (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither Yee nor The Independent are subject to BLP. BLP is about what editors in Wikipedia do. We have to make decisions about what is encyclopedic, and what isn't, about what deserves WP:WEIGHT (in other words, what is WP:DUE within an article and what is WP:UNDUE. (and user User:Jane Dawson that is the issue here which some people shorthand as "noteworthy"; WP:Notability is about whether a whole article should exist or not - DUE/UNDUE is the similar thing with regard to content within an article). It is somewhat questionable about whether being invited to give a talk by a student group is noteworthy (the group being at Harvard makes me lean toward yes); I cannot see how being invited to give a talk at some obscure conference is noteworthy.

It is clear that people have been treating this page like a newspaper but we are WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia editors think about enduring importance -- the question is "what is encyclopedic here?" or "What will reasonably still matter ten or twenty years from now? Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I sort of think I get it. Wished the mindset be applied to the whole article. Take a loot at the level of detailed applied to the case - as mentioned, its almost as long as the Watergate article. In any case, this seems to be developing into something bigger, its been reported that he has received death threats about his controversial views about removal of age-of-consent, sparked by videos following his "uninvites". Probably better to re-visit this much later in the future when stuff has settled down. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Slapping incident

This has been here for years and was major news for several weeks in local and international news media until the slapper was sentenced to a jail term. It can be summarised but should not be removed as trivia. 203.117.121.236 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Section for Pedo activism

Someone needs to add his work advocating child porn, decriminalizing pedophilia, and removing consent laws. Which he talked about on youtube --Cs california (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)