Talk:Calvin Cheng

Neutral Point of View

The section on price fixing is not neutral at all. It ought to be in a controversial box. This guy was a nominated member of parliament in Singapore and then got charged with price fixing. This is controversial.

Cheng has also made inflammatory statements about muslims and terrorism. Given the nature of his statements and his background with the Red Cross and as a NMP, the statements ought to be included in the article.

Unfortunately there is a user who removes any edits made to this article. I'm guessing the user is either the articles subject, or closely linked with articles subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.172.2 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for discussing this on the talk page. I see that you have identified certain issues. However, please do add the sources for the same. I also provide my answers below

1. The section on price fixing seems to cite articles and doesn't seem biased to me. I am not sure if it needs to be moved to a Controversial box. However I also feel that it looks out of place in a biography. Perhaps the article could be reformatted.
2. I could not find the comments about "Muslims and terrorism". Please cite the sources about any controversy it generated.
3. I will have a look at the page history to see if there are any incidents of vandalism. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

1. There was a separate section for the Price Fixing but it was removed by user Ariuclam a number of times.
2. There was a note about the controversial terrorist comments but was removed by user Ariculam.

  Here is a reference .. http://mustsharenews.com/not-happy-ex-nmp-calvin-cheng/

In recent times, Calvin Cheng is better known for making deliberately inflammatory right wing statements. These are of interest and are controversial because it is unusual to have such an outspoken former member of parliament in Singapore. Singaporean members of parliament are known for pragmatic and carefully worded responses. Calvin's "shock jock" style diatribes are unusual given the carefully managed political landscape.

 http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/calvin-cheng-rebuts-critics-on-singapore-trading-freedom-for-economic-success
 http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/11/19/the-hypocrisy-of-calvin-chengs-politicised-presidency-danger/
 https://sg.news.yahoo.com/calvin-cheng-vs-alfian-sa-060051754.html
 https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ex-nmp-calvin-cheng-suggests-possible-use-of-isa-on-commentators-who-cross--red-lines-045420212.html
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/calvin-cheng/lee-kuan-yew-legacy-myths_b_6950646.html

1. It is Ariculam systematically undoing any edits of the article to maintain what, in my opinion, is a un-encyclopedic puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.172.2 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi 203.125.172.2, Thank you for your replies. May I suggest the following?

1. For the price fixing issue, instead of having a separate section titled "Price Fixing", I would suggest splitting the biography into sub-sections such as early life and education, career in fashion industry, nominated member of parliament and media entrepreneurship. The content of the price fixing issue can be included in the fashion industry sub-section. In addition, I propose renaming the Biography to Life and Career. The article on Eunice Olsen could be used as a reference.
2. I had a look at some of the citations you posted. I feel that some of them (for instance, this one) may not be from a reliable website. However, I believe your citations from Straits Times, Yahoo and Huffington post are reliable.
3. About your point on controversial comments, I would disagree with including the statement "Calvin Cheng is better known for making deliberately inflammatory right wing statements". The description "deliberately inflammatory comments" seems to violate WP:IMPARTIAL. In addition, making "right wing statements" in itself doesn't qualify as controversial enough to necessitate a separate section called "Controversies".
4. I just searched extensively for articles about Cheng and it seems he is also a social and political commentator whose commentaries have been published by the media both Singaporean and global. In addition, I found that he has also been invited to various policy forums. I believe this is notable enough to include in the article. A new section title "Socio-political Commentator" could be created. Brief descriptions of his notable article/views could be added though strictly adhering to WP:IMPARTIAL. In addition, the following are relevant to this section.
   1. Include views about the "myth of tradeoffs" expressed in this article. The article seems to have been reproduced in the Straits Times as well.
   2. Include Views about ISA and Alfian Sa'at since there seems to be media coverage of the same.
   3. Exclude views about "terrorism" since I do not find the source to be reliable and neutral.
5. I agree with you that there are some instances of WP:PEACOCK in the article. I did not have enough time before and so I only fixed the instances in the summary. However, the article as a whole doesn't seem to be an "un-encyclopedic puff piece". If you find instances of WP:PEACOCK, please tag at the appropriate places.
6. I could not find any disruptive edits by the user Ariculam you are referring to. Did you mean any other user? Please provide links to the disruptive edits if any.

PS - I thank you for having a civil discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well now that the issue regarding terrorism and killing children has played out a bit more in the Singaporean press, here are some better sources for the story...

http://themiddleground.sg/2015/11/28/counselling-calvin-cheng/

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/calvin-chengs-comments-killing-children-insensitive-not-hate-speech-says-media

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/calvin-cheng-s-killing/2299992.html

I've noticed that someone has added a paragraph about this which user Aricialam has promptly removed. Again I believe Aricialam is pushing a NPOV with her edits.

Again Aricialam is removing content.

Latest Edits

I agree with all of Lemongirl942 Lemongirl942's points. Recent edits have contravened 2 important rules. Firstly NPOV - as a socio-political commentator, Cheng has said many things throughout the years including all the references she cited. By singling out these incidents and creating a section called Controversy violates both WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV

The source tremiritus, middleground, facebook posts, the onlinecitizen all violate WP:VERIFIABILITY

It is very clear that recent edits are all negative and contravenes WP:AVOIDVICTIM

Thank you Aricialam (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. You are plainly mistaken. Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved WP:BLPCOI. There is obviously no need to highlight "all the references [Calvin Cheng] has cited"; it would neither be possible nor would it be a notable topic to write about. There is no breach of impartiality here. In any case, you are more than welcome to add any references that Calvin Cheng had made as a socio-political commentator into the article to achieve a NPOV. But you did not do that; instead, you removed the entire section four times, again and again, in the span of 8-9hours.

Most of the citations that you have disputed are primary sources of Calvin Cheng's remarks on social media, both on his Facebook and blog. These citations are therefore reliable. Any disputed citations also deserve further editing and refinements, not the removal of an entire section. In any case, the recent edit relies on many more citations than the ones that you have disputed. It really boggles the mind as to why you would remove/blank the entire section at this juncture if you were really concerned about a number of citations that can be easily rectified. Thanks. Khairulash (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the suggestions by Lemongirl942. I have removed an entire section precisely because of her objections and suggestions. Including one section of controversy ONLY and highlighting ONLY two events from many articles both global and Singaporean is WP:AVOIDVICTIM. That is the right way to go about it - Lemongirl942's suggestions - , if you are bothered. Also sources for BLP are held to a higher standard than normal articles. Please refer to WP:BLP. Please also look at the suggestions by anonymous IP above and the way he has phrased them. He is plainly out to attack the subject. Thank you Aricialam (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I wrote the comments above. I am not "clearly out to attack the guy" like you claim. Calvin himself is quoted as saying "his original comment was deliberately provocative, so as to stir debate". http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/calvin-chengs-comments-on-killing-children-insensitive-but-not-hate-speech-says-media That is exactly what I said above and why I felt it needed to be included in the article.203.125.172.2 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Also check the timing of Lemongirl1942's statements. They were prior to the "Killing Children" comments playing out in the local media. So at the time Lemongirl1942 commented, there were not suffiecent sources for that section. Now there are. For example.. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/calvin-chengs-comments-on-killing-children-insensitive-but-not-hate-speech-says-media http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/calvin-cheng-s-killing/2299992.html 203.125.172.2 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If you refer to the two news articles linked above, you will note that they refer too and directly quote facebook pages. If you refer to this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites you can see that facebook citations and links are sometimes ok. Given this context, this is surely appropriate.203.125.172.2 (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In you edit you claim "(Citations are all from Facebook pages blogs and non credible sites. Look up wiki rules)" This is NOT TRUE. The section you deleted included references to the following ... Channel News Asia. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/calvin-cheng-s-killing/2299992.html The straits times STOMP site. http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/this-urban-jungle/former-nmp-calvin-cheng-responds-to-controversial-comments-about-killing-children Further, please provide links to the "wiki rules" you refer. 203.125.172.2 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam: I wholeheartedly agree with @203.125.172.2:, Lemongirl1942's statements were made in the context of an absence of sources, thus they no longer apply today. The Facebook posts were also written by Calvin Cheng, the subject of the article himself, and are thus reliable citations of primary sources, and so are his blog posts WP:BLPSPS. They are thus appropriate in this context. Given that this piece is supported with reliable, neutral citations, I do not see any reason whatsoever that justifies the removal of an entire section. Finally, there is no issue of victimization here; these controversies are the only notable highlights of Calvin Cheng's career as a self-proclaimed socio-political commentator. In any case, and as I've said before, you are more than welcome to add any general references that Calvin Cheng had made as a socio-political commentator into the article. But you didn't. Khairulash (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash: By saying "these controversies are the only notable highlights of Calvin Cheng's career as a self-proclaimed socio-political commentator" it shows you are severely prejudiced against the subject and perhaps not the best person to be editing this page. Lemongirl1942 for example changed "leading figure" to "works" to adhere to NPOV. You seem intent on painting the subject in a bad light.

Also, if you want to add a section, you have to make sure you adhere to guidelines for BLP. Not put in a section that violates and then tell others to go clean it up.

And to the anon IP editor above, stomp is also not a credible source. So that leaves you with syndicated news references to highlight one negative event, to start a new section that violates NPOV AVOIDVICTIM. To both, remember "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."

Thanks for the civil discussion Aricialam (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2015 (U

Stomp is a news portal owned and operated by Singapore Press Holdings. It is an acronym for "Straits Times Online Media Print". The article in question is balanced.

Here is another Straits Times article on the same story..

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/calvin-chengs-comments-on-killing-children-insensitive-but-not-hate-speech-says-media

You will notice the copy is almost word ford word the same as the STOMP article.

The facts are that Calvin made controversial public statements and there were predictable responses. This is neither negative nor positive. Calvin's original statements, criticism of his statements and Calvin's response to the criticism are included. This is balanced and neutral. You described what happened as a "negative event" which indicates you are holding a non-neutral viewpoint.

WP:AVOIDVICTIMdoes not apply here. WP:AVOIDVICTIM relates to someones whose noteworthiness relates entirely to the action of others. for example, they are the victim of a crime. 203.125.172.2 (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC) 203.125.172.2 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea who I am talking to above as it is a shared IP. Anyway, if this is the case, do as LemonGirl suggests and start a section as a social commentator, include all his previous globally syndicated comments and articles, and use this as an example as a time he can be controversial. Not start as section called 'controversy' and put one incident in. This affects the tone of the entire article. Also, again you say "there were predictable responses". this violates NPOV. Thank you Aricialam (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You clearly don't understand NPOV. Calvin himself described his comments as being "deliberately provocative". If a comment is provocative it will get responses. That is predictable. How on earth is that not neutral?

In the same way you didn't understand AVOIDVICTIM.

59.189.180.12 (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Also please take a look at the history of this talk page. Aricialam has been removing commentary from this page as well as the article. 59.189.180.12 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Since 18 November, there has been a surge of anonymous IPs editing this page. I have only removed or reverted incidences of BLP violations and vandalism. All edits by Lemongirl942 have remained unchanged. In fact the latest version is Lemongirl942's version. Thank you. Aricialam (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam: What you just said is hilarious because the edits made by Lemongirl1952 are largely structural and grammatical in nature--you have, on the other hand, consistently and unfailingly removed worthy, neutral and factual content that are neither vandalism nor BLP violations. This behaviour naturally begs two legitimate questions: firstly, why are you so obsessed over an article of Calvin Cheng; secondly, why were all of these edits so consistently and unfailingly removed? But that is another matter altogether.

Anyway, returning to the issue at hand, the only argument that you are left to rely upon is that we should, "start a section as a social commentator, include all his previous globally syndicated comments and articles, and use this as an example as a time he can be controversial". Can you please provide evidence of the following:

1. Strong, reliable, neutral sources proving that Calvin Cheng is a recognized socio-political commentator, thus justifying a new section in itself;

2. Strong, reliable, neutral sources of "all his globally syndicated comments and articles", aside from the public controversies that you have removed;

3. Strong, reliable, neutral sources proving that "all his globally syndicated comments and articles" are of a NOTABLE and IMPARTIAL nature to justify their presence in a BLP article.

I kindly await your reply. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Khairulash. I would add that the article ought to include a separate section on price fixing. Including price fixing as a separate section was discussed earlier with Lemongirl. This change has been made a number of times in the past previously but was removed by Arcialam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.180.12 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing Comments from Talk Page.

It needs to be noted here that Aricialam has removed large sections of discussion from this talk page. Particularly the 3 August 2015 undo. You can see she removed a large section of discussion relating to problems with the articles citations and problems with the articles objectiveness. The comparison is here.. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calvin_Cheng&diff=next&oldid=671084782 203.125.172.2 (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi 203.125.172.2, thank you so much for highlighting this deleted discussion. The points that were raised with regard to the article's lack of objectivity are sound and relevant. A major clean-up of this article is necessary. I'll try my best to see to it that this is done. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Cited references don't actually verify claims in article, problematic amount of exaggeration and/or unbacked claims

I've added back some comments that were deleted from this talk page. I think they are important because they highlight the many problems with the biography section.

Claim 1: The article claims that "During his tenure, Cheng was at the forefront of trying to internationalise Asian beauty, and spearheaded efforts to find a global 'Asian' face"

However, the reference only discusses a single contest of 65 contestants, a mere 12 of which were asians, insufficient grounds for a claim as grandiose as "internationalising asian beauty" or "spearheading efforts" thereof. In fact, to some extent the fact that Cheng's firm hosted a competition with so few Asians contradicts the claim that he made efforts to promote them, and in the reference Cheng even openly casts doubts on their ability to win said competition. Huge authoritative claims requires equally authoritative references to back them up. The scale of the claim is utterly disproportionate to the reference. Either remove these grandiose claims or back them up with proper references.

Claim 2: Cheng led a nationwide effort to discover a Korean model that could compete internationally

The cited reference only notes Cheng's firm hosting a competition in Korea and that he went to Korea to judge some 40 models. No mention was made of the scope thereof, or the manner in which scouting was conducted, or the extent to which he was involved("led" is a very strong claim here, considering the number of appointments Cheng holds simultaneously at the same time).

Claim 3: "...." These remarks were to prove prescient in the late 2000s and early 2010s, when a rising China finally allowed the emergence of the world's first Chinese supermodel, Liu Wen

A single cherry-picked example of one model hardly proves any prescience, much less any purported correlation to economic effects. In actuality Cheng's claim was a motherhood statement so vague that any single example of an Asian model succeeding could be taken as vindication. The reference here is merely an interview with said cherry-picked token asian model.

Claim 4: From 2003 to 2005, Cheng was the Founding President of Singapore's modelling association,[13][14] which aimed to increase the pay and welfare of models in Singapore. The association successfully managed to increase model wages for shows by 60%, and for shoots by 33%[15]

This part of the article is clearly written to sway the reader in viewer in favour of Cheng prior to the revelation of his firm's indictment for price-fixing. The statistics presented were presented by none other than Cheng himself in his own personal defense, and are not backed up by any third-party citations or sources. The entire premise of increasing wages and noble intentions was made by Cheng and Cheng alone. It clearly not appropriate to state the claims of the accused party as objective truth on the issue. Clearly whoever included Cheng's defense into this article even before the indictment was mentioned was trying to sway the reader.

To begin with, this entire paragraph on the issue of price-fixing should be separated into its own segment rather than lumped into a biography.

Claim 5: Cheng revealed that the 'adverse effect' that the Competition Commission claimed was in fact most greatly felt by the Government-linked media giants of SPH and Mediacorp for model shoots, and the Government-backed Singapore Fashion Week and Singapore Fashion Festival for fashion shows. Cheng wrote, "Therefore in summary, the biggest 'clients' that were 'adversely affected' by our 'price-fixing' (which increased the wages of poor young people), was not some poor man on the street, but government owned media monopolies and government agencies themselves." [18]

These are again, scurrilous and dubious claims made Cheng in his own defense, entirely unsubstantiated by any third-party references of any sort of authority, and presented as "revelations". In the lack of objective information available, only the facts should be presented, that Cheng's firm was charged for price fixing, after which Cheng made an unbacked suggestion that this was part of a government ploy to benefit their own government-linked media outlets. This claim can be considered a conspiracy theory, and therefore needs an exonerating amount of evidence by way of references to justify as even noteworthy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.172.2 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This was originally my edit to the talk page before User:Aricialam rather rudely deleted it from the talk page. If any editors have any rebuttals, please post them here and don't start another edit war. If not, I will be removing the unsourced statements. Reiuji (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Many of the points above are wrong. Cheng was extensively interviewed by Asian press (all cited and referenced) which is good evidence that he was at the forefront of an effort to search for an asian face. He was interviewed saying that when China rises economically, so will a Chinese supermodel - this eventually happened. And so it is a verified statement. Your description in the model wages section is also biased. Many of your claims such as "The Competition Commission of Singapore, which noted that the agencies involved had intentionally or unintentionally enriched themselves by collecting a heftier commission on the model's increased rates, and fined the agencies that had remained in the cartel after the Competition Act came into effect, including Cheng" are untrue and slanderous. The other statements you removed are all sourced. Also a sepaerate section contravened WP:UNDUE Aricialam (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How is that untrue or slanderous? It's stated right there in the letter to ST forum from Teo Wee Guan, Director from the Commission. http://web.archive.org/web/20150509144234/http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/modelling-agencies-price-fixing-had-adverse-effect-market-20130509 Reiuji (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

>>The other statements you removed are all sourced.

No, as I have clearly demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs, the statements far exaggerated and went beyond what was said in the sources. The sources never actually said what you are claiming in your edits. Reiuji (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Please learn from Lemongirl942. We discussed things reasonably and resolved an issue. Instead of reporting me. Your statements are the ones that are biased and contravened neutral point of view. This version on your section has been edited many many times and you are revisiting an old issue. Aricialam (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam:Oh please you think you can just misrepresent what Lemongirl942 said and think I'll fall for that? You have done nothing but revert, revert, revert. The only reason this has been an issue is because you keep reverting people's edits. How many people do you need to revert and start edit wars with before it gets through to you that there is an issue with the page? Reiuji (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: You used the word 'debacle'. That contravenes neutrality for example. Also please leave in the point about Liu Wen. Aricialam (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji:@Aricialam: Let me clarify stuff here since I seem to be involved. The latest edit [1] by Aricialam has an edit summary "This is the version agreed with Lemongirl". I would like to clarify that the agreement was only for the first point in the section Calvin_Cheng#Achievements_and_appointments for the first point and NOT the whole article.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: We can discuss and settle this issue on the talk page. I would ask you at least not to edit at the moment. May I have permission to format your original comment in this section? It seems badly formatted and it hard to read. We can look over the points one by one.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: If you concede the claims of prescience, I will concede on the use of the word "debacle".

@Lemongirl942: Acceptable. However, with regards to specific phrasing, if there is an issue with the edit, then take issue with the diff. We don't need a debate for debate's sake if it's not even going to end up on the article.Reiuji (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Thank you. I just formatted your original comment for easier viewing. I will respond to claims one by one and we can use the claim no. for easy reference. In addition, please indent your comments by placing a :  Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Claim 1

OK, I had a look at Claim 1. There is only one citation [2]. First of all, the "Cheng was at the forefront" is an example of WP:PEACOCK. Secondly, if he was at the forefront, I would be happy to see another reference mentioning this fact. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, it should also be mentioned what exactly is an Asian face. Quoting the article, "While some, such as Elite's Mr Cheng, are banking on the 'stereotyped Lucy Liu look', others say a variety of Asian faces from the different ethnic groups in the region will provide more diversity in the future."  Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Claim 3

@Reiuji: Response to claims (may not be in ascending order, but I will try to answer all)

Response to Claim 3. I will agree that the example of one model does not prove Cheng's statement as Correlation does not imply causation. The citation given for Liu Wen [3] does not mention Cheng's assertion anywhere. In addition, the statement "These remarks were to prove prescient in the late 2000s and early 2010s, when a rising China finally allowed the emergence of the world's first Chinese supermodel, Liu Wen" seems to contain original research and thus violates WP:NOR. My suggestion is that the statement be removed.

 Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Just a footnote, Cheng's assertion was mentioned here, the previous inline reference. However, Cheng makes no mention of a a supermodel. All Cheng states is a vague blanket prediction of counter-flows from Asia. But yes, the statement is original speculation. There is neither proof of any correlation to China's economic growth, nor is there proof Cheng predicted an China supermodel. Even if there was, the claim is an fallacy argument by selective observation. I wouldn't even call this research, that's demeaning to real researchers. Reiuji (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Yup, I saw the inline citation for Cheng's statement and I also read the citation for Liu Wen. I am not disputing the fact that Cheng made those statements. I am just disputing the speculated argument ('of proving prescience') mentioned in the article. Also, I call it Original Research since it is a Wikipedia term for any assertion/inference which is not directly cited. In any case, I have removed the statement violating WP:NOR. You can see the diff here [4]. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: This is a good start. However, there are still other claims which are not backed by the sources other than tangential, speculatively-derived, tenuous links to vague notions. With the competition in Tibet, the current citation shows that it was going on in 2002 even before Cheng was even in a position to direct anything. This shows that it was neither initiated by him, nor was it watershed. There is also no evidence of it attracting international media attention. A single cherry-picked photo story with a caption on a news website has not garnered international attention, much less "widespread international attention".

For the India school, the media attention for the launch was split between Cheng and [directors and CEOs]. There is no conclusive evidence Cheng personally led the effort himself, only circumstantial evidence. To adhere to Wikipedia's policy of giving due weight, equal weight should be attributed to all relevant persons in launching the school, not just Cheng himself. My contention is with the unsubstantiated assertion of leadership. Even for articles such as Steve Jobs, editors refrain from making overarching statements like leading the invention of the iphone or statements of opening new branches in other countries. We should apply the same standard to this article to adhere to cut back on statements and language that belong in a CV, not in an encyclopedia.

I have already mentioned my concerns with the statements with regards to the Korean modelling competition and propositions of Cheng being "at the forefront of efforts", flowery language like "not only", verbs such as "spearheading" as these are clearly WP:PEACOCK and puffery which goes against WP:NPOV.Reiuji (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Your points are absurd. He was the Head of Elite Models for Asia. So if he was not 'leading', 'spearheading' or any other similar verb, what would you say a regional head of a company does? Take a back seat? And obviously if you look at some of the other citations, he was already Head of Asia when the Tibet event took place. It is simple chronology. You are obviously a biased editor with a vendetta Aricialam (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: 'proved to be prescient' does not mean Cheng is prescient. It fits the narrative that he was looking for a global asian face, it did not happen when he was Head, but what he predicted will happen happened. But since the word 'prescient' offends so much, I have edited the statement to sound more neutral. Aricialam (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: Then you should at least get the year right. If your edits imply it happened in a year in which it didn't, then don't blame other editors for getting thrown off by your shoddy account of things. And you should at least cite as per wikipedia's guidelines. As for the flowery language and puffery, take a look at the Steve Jobs page. Apple CEO during a time when Apple became the most valuable company to investors in the world. Is there any use of words like "spearheading", "leading" in the business sense, or of hyping up the opening of Apple stores in new countries? No, there is none. Why? It's simple. The achievements of a person speak for themselves without the use of colourful language or puffery. Reiuji (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Then change the year instead of removing it. Be a responsible editor. A leader leads. A Head, heads/spearheads. It is not puffery or colourful language. It is common sense. Aricialam (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Already removed the word 'prescient' even though you clearly have a poor grasp of English. Nobody was saying Cheng was prescient. I did not revert - you did Aricialam (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: Sorry, but the statement you reinserted not even related to the article. In addition, it is impossible to verify vague predictions by people. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: In the article 'eye of beholder' it was about a search for a global asian face and how europeans still dominated the catwalk. Liu Wen was the first asian supermodel. This is verifable. Aricialam (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: Again, this comes down to your citations. If you had better structure and citations then it would become obvious. But if your citation only connects one dot in the line, don't expect readers to go through all the other citations in the list to get the other dots. As Khairulash mentioned earlier, the entire article is in need of a rewrite. As for your vague generalisations of leaders and heads, Encyclopaedias demand a higher standard of language and rigour than common usage. Common usage, especially as loosely used here, is not enough to pass the muster for WP:NPOV.

@Aricialam: The word Europe was mentioned one time. Europeans, zero times. I suggest you tighten your language Reiuji (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: A person who is arguing that saying a leader leads is not encyclopedic, and arguing that models from Europe is somehow different from European models, is obviously splitting hairs for the sake of doing so. The only reason why you are not connecting the dots is because you are splitting hairs. Aricialam (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: I think the article needs a lot more writing. I agree with you. There is missing a section of Cheng being an NMP, and a section as a socio-political commentator. But nobody here including me can be bothered at the moment, and putting in and deleting little chunks of info isn't making a difference and instead is descending into petty edit wars like yours. Aricialam (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: the specific sentence in the cited link was: "The rise of Chinese model Lu Yan as Europe's most sought-after Asian model has raised eyebrows among both the domestic fashion industry and the public". There's no evidence of any domination of european models in the citation. Either you find another citation, delete the claim. I don't think I'm splitting any hairs here.Reiuji (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: "At the Elite Model Look 2003 in Singapore, Nordic blonde beauties dominated again. Although the world's catwalks need more Asian faces, it's still a tough climb for Chinese models to reach the top. "If you've got a sexy round face, a voluptuous figure and stunning black hair, but the fashion industry wants skinny blondes with high cheekbones this year, well, too bad, there's little that can be done." "Jia admits there's little chance for Asian models but she was happy to be one of the representatives to make her modeling debut at the Elite search." Aricialam (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: You should correct the viewpoint to say "Nordic", then, not European. The absence of Chinese models does not imply anything about Europe. Again, I suggest you tighten your use of language. Reiuji (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Is Slovakian Nordic? It is not. Have you even read the article properly or you don't understand it? And consensus in Wikipedia is this "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."Aricialam (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Thank you for adding the WP:PEACOCK to the section. I was about to do so myself. Reiuji (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: You either believe the citation, or you don't! Make up your mind already please. Do you want European, Nordic, or Slovakian now, which one is it? Reiuji (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: The article says Nordic, and then adds Slovakian. Where are the Nordic countries and Slovakia? Asia? Aricialam (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: I will concede on Liu Wen if you concede on the other points. Deal? Aricialam (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: Instead of casting a hasty generalisation and saying "Europeans", why don't you simply say "Nordics and Slovaks"? Or perhaps you prefer to include Brits, French, Germans, Czechs, Irish, and so on? Make up your mind please.Reiuji (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Because I am a fashion editor and I know that in the 2000s, it didn't matter if it was Slovak or Nordic, as long as they looked European they stood a chance of being a Supermodel. One doesn't need to split hairs like you do. Aricialam (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji:@Aricialam: I modified the statement since the citation is only valid for one event. Also changed Europeans to Nordic.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: This is fair for now. But further research will show that white models still dominate fashion weeks. See here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2559938/Jezebel-says-little-progress-model-diversity.html

@Aricialam: "Because I am a fashion editor and I know that in the 2000s, it didn't matter if it was Slovak or Nordic, as long as they looked European they stood a chance of being a Supermodel." Sorry, but wikipedia needs citations. Please see WP:NOR. I understand the point but wikipedia needs citations which directly imply the assertion/inference and connect it to the subject. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: Please adhere to the rule on original research. WP:NOR This is an encyclopedia. The loose standard of writing in your fashion rag does not pass muster here. Reiuji (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji: Please do not be rude to me. I am old enough to be your mother. Please respect your elders. Aricialam (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Reiuji:@Aricialam: I would request you both to please maintain WP:CIVIL  Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: I merely seek to reminding you to use proper citations. If there are none, then at the very least it needs to have a citation needed tag. I think whatever expertise you bring in whatever insights as fashion editor (despite there not being any google results for aricia lam the fashion editor) and

I apologise for rudeness on my part. Reiuji (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I will concede I was wrong about the point about the Tibetian event not being Cheng's, and will make the changes to the first sentence to make it clear Cheng was with elite from 2001 to 2004. I don't think anyone is contesting this, right?

With regards to the other statement of garnering international media attention, it needs to at least have a citation needed tag left on it since it seems to have happened at a time when internet reporting of fashion events was scarce. Until the point in which it can be conclusively shown, the statement is difficult to prove. However, I accept this is a work in progress and the citation will come in due time.

1. With regard to the part about "opening" elite in other countries, it should be clear what exactly is being opened.
2. For China, it wasn't until after Cheng left that it opened agencies, so competitions only.
3. For India, rephrase "not only" and "but also" to refrain from puffery. A simple "and" will do.
4. It's also helpful to point out the investment involved in the school, that two schools were launched, and that a number of high profile fashion industry persons were involved in its running.
5. It wouldn't hurt to point out to readers that Elite being a 100 million USD firm.
6. For the phase "spearheaded efforts to find a global 'Asian' face", there at least needs to be a citation needed tag, at least until a citation which demonstrates a clearer link between Cheng and this search appears, which should appear in due time.
7. With regards to the price-fixing part, I think "revealed" should be reworded to something neutral like "wrote" or "noted". "Revealed" strongly implies the implication of truthfulness.

Are you agreeable to these changes? 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Claim 5

For claim 5, I found 2 sources of information we can use. 1. [5] 2. [6]  Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Section title debate .. Sociopolitical Commentator vs. Controversy

@Khairulash:

The Straits Times have consistently called him a sociopolitical commentator. They same source you used.

Huffington Post, The Independent UK, as well as Singaporean newspapers like Today, Straits Times are all strong and reliable sources. You need to make up your mind logically: is he a noteworthy socio political commentator or not? If he isn't, then his remarks are not important enough to have a section called 'controversy'. But if as you claimed they are controversial and reached a large section of society, then he is a socio political commentator with reach - which means you start a section on it :) Logical.

Structure and grammar are important in keeping a BLP neutral.

When writing a BLP, in order for something to be included, it must not affect the entire tone of the entire article to make it look negative. Including a section called 'controversies' and 'price fixing' does exactly that. 'Controversies' should be included either in a section describing is political or socio-political commentator career which would include a history of non controversial remarks, and 'price-fixing' his business career if you want to separate it. Aricialam (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Excluding verifiable and noteworthy events from the biography because you think they are "negative" means you are presenting a non-neutral point of view. You are attempting to present the subject in a favorable light by removing material that you portrays him in a negative way. 203.125.172.2 (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam: None of the sources that I have adduced mentioned him as a socio-political commentator, let alone a recognised one. Again, if you insist on a section as him as a socio-political commentator, please show specific evidence, with links, of the following:

1. Strong, reliable, neutral sources proving that Calvin Cheng is a recognized socio-political commentator, thus justifying a new section in itself;

2. Strong, reliable, neutral sources of "all his globally syndicated comments and articles", aside from the public controversies that you have removed;

3. Strong, reliable, neutral sources proving that "all his globally syndicated comments and articles" are of a NOTABLE and IMPARTIAL nature to justify their presence in a BLP article.

Absent these evidence, the current section on Controversies is fine in and of itself. One does not need to be a socio-political commentator to create controversies that are wide-spread and sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. That is where your supposedly "logical" argument fails. On this point, I'd like to point out that you seem to have a warped view of NPOV: you are suggesting, in effect, to sugarcoat this article because of these controversies that you deemed as "negative". But as 203.125.172.2 pointed out, these controversies are actually neither negative nor positive; Calvin Cheng's remarks and their responses are factual, verifiable and notable events that have been covered by multiple credible sources in a neutral manner. Your insistence in removing this content is therefore prejudiced in and of itself. In totality, I'd like to reiterate again that this discussion will be rendered nugatory unless you show specific evidence, with links, of the following:

1. Strong, reliable, neutral sources proving that Calvin Cheng is a recognized socio-political commentator, thus justifying a new section in itself;

2. Strong, reliable, neutral sources of "all his globally syndicated comments and articles", aside from the public controversies that you have removed;

3. Strong, reliable, neutral sources proving that "all his globally syndicated comments and articles" are of a NOTABLE and IMPARTIAL nature to justify their presence in a BLP article.

I look forward to your reply with these evidence. Thanks. Khairulash (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash:

Lemongirl has given some examples. I have given some examples. A simple google search will find numerous articles on The Straits Times, TODAY, Lianhe Zaobao. Also his article on Freedoms on Huffington Post, The Independent UK. He has also interviews with CCTV, BBC World Service etc.

I think that's sufficient.

Also your sources for the alleged Alfian Sa'at incident are not credible. The Yahoo article is actually a blog post from Vulcan Post. There is also only ONE syndicated credible source for the "children of terrorists" incident you described. See here : https://www.google.com.sg/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=killing+children+calvin+cheng&tbm=nws

Thank you Aricialam (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Alleged? Are you claiming this never took place? 203.125.172.2 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam: No, what you have provided (if any) is manifestly insufficient. None of your articles mention Calvin Cheng as a recognised socio-political commentator. Most of these articles, if not all, are mere replicas of Calvin Cheng's comments. They do not offer any justification whatsoever as to why Calvin Cheng's comments are of a NOTABLE and IMPARTIAL nature to be in a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, by your logic, any contributor to a newspaper/media outlet deserves a Wikipedia article, no matter how obscure that contributor might be. Again, if you insist on belaboring this point, please provide specific evidence and accompanying links.

The Yahoo source that I have cited is self-published by Yahoo, here. The Yahoo article that was originally published by Vulcan post is here. They are two different articles, and I had only cited the former Yahoo article, not the latter Yahoo article. And the "children of terrorists" incident was also covered by multiple credible sources including Channel News Asia, The Straits Times and Yahoo. You are thus wrong on two counts. So please double-check before you embarrass yourself again in the future.

In summary, we have proved the following arguments against you:

1. The edit made on 30th November comprised events that are factual and neutral, which is sufficiently supported by credible and reliable sources. These events, being notable, factual and verifiable events, therefore deserves to be in the Wikipedia article in and of itself.

2. As these events are neither positive nor "negative", it is inappropriate to add in further content to supposedly make it "neutral"--such inclusion of content would in fact be biased in and of itself as an attempt to sugarcoat the article.

3. In any case, there is no appropriate overarching section under which these events can be placed. Calvin Cheng is not a recognised socio-political commentator. There are no sources mentioning him as such. There are also no sources showing that his comments are of a NOTABLE and IMPARTIAL enough nature to form a new section of a Wikipedia article. Accordingly, as per points 2 and 3, it is neither necessary nor is it appropriate to create a new overarching section here.

Accordingly, the edit made on 30th November should and will not be removed. If you nonetheless insist on a new overarching section of Calvin Cheng as a socio-political commentator, please discuss it here civilly instead of removing the entire edit acrimoniously. I hope that after all the discussion that we have had, this is something that we can agree upon, being mature and civil adults. Thanks. Khairulash (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash:

No I disagree. You are plainly wrong. You don't need an article to say he is a "socio political commentator" for him to be one. See Lemongirl's explanation. There are enough articles he has written to show he is one.

And in order for you to include an event in a BLP, you need to show it is a significant event. One citation each for each event in a long career is insufficient. It will destroy NPOV.

This means two things.

One, you cannot insert these events by themselves as they contravene NPOV. If you want to, you will have to start a section as him as a socio political commentator and write it in a neutral way, otherwise we will revert the changes the next time you do it. Similarly, the price fixing event is already inside and is written in a NPOV way. There is no need for stand-alone section, unless you start a neutral Business section. Thank you Aricialam (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash:@Aricialam:@203.125.172.2:

Hi! Firstly, my apologies for not seeing this sooner. I see that you all have referred to something I posted. Let me clarify my position.

1. Statements on 'killing children of ISIS fighters' - Previously I had written that I did not want this included in the article since I did not find the source reliable enough. I apologise for my mistake. My statements (and any edits to this end) were however in good faith, considering that the source indicated (mustsharenews) was not reliable (and I still consider it so). As a result, at that time I did not think it was proper to include it in the article. I had a look at the links presented after that [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and I feel it is OK to include it in the article since there are sufficient reliable citations. Once again, I apologise for my mistake.
2. Alfian Sa'at statements in Controversy Section - In my opinion, one of the criteria for an incident should be included in the controversy section is that it should have been mentioned multiple times in the media. The Alfian Saat incident for example, does not qualify for including in the controversy section since there has been only 1 or 2 references in the media. I feel it should be included in the article but not in the controversy section.
3. 'Killing children of ISIS fighters' statements in Controversy Section - I read the discussion about whether to include a separate controversy section or not. Other than multiple citations in media, a controversy usually involves people (third party) stating their views on the incident. The incident in question seems to have enough citations in the media. In addition, a related third party (Media Literacy Council, Chairman) also seems to have been involved and classified the remarks as 'insensitive and inappropriate' but 'not hate speech'. Another third party, the General Secretary of the Singapore Kindness Movement (not related to Cheng) also seems to have stated their opinion here [13]. The incident seems to have generated enough interest for third parties to comment. And just now I found that there was a reference to it in these unrelated articles as well [14], [15], [16].
   Looking at everything, I would say it would be OK to create a controversy section for this incident, since it seems to have generated enough interest. However, once again let me emphasise that the views of Cheng himself (which he explained in his blogpost) must also be presented.
4. Price fixing incident in Controversy section - The price fixing incident seems to have enough citations, so I support having it in the article. But I could not find commentaries by third parties or any official apology about it. I didn't find any editorial in newspapers either. Till such sources are found, I would suggest not to include it in the controversy section and just let it be as it is now.
5. New Section on Socio Political Commentator - I would support having a new section since Cheng seems to be a socio-political commentator. Hopefully, I will find out some sources establishing this fact soon. (Sorry, I don't have enough time to look up at the moment).

I hope this clarifies my view. Personally I was more interested in the structure of the article, but since there seemed to be a dispute regarding my post on this page, I looked up the article content as well. In any case, I'm sorry for my mistake in my previous post.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Hi Lemongirl942, thank you so much for the reply! No apologies are needed. We are really grateful for your clarification on your previous post, and for the recommendations that you have so neatly laid out. They are immensely helpful, so I'm sure all of us here appreciate it a lot.

As per your recommendations, I will make the following edits to the article:

1. I will shift the 'Remarks on Alfian Saat' from the 'Controversies' section to another part of the article. As such, the 'Controversies' section will only comprise 'Remarks made on the Killing of Children of ISIS Fighters'

2. I will cite the various sources that you have so helpfully adduced regarding the 'Remarks made on the Killing of Children of ISIS Fighters', which, inter alia, are as follows: [17], [18], [19],[20].

3. I will not move the Price-fixing incident into another section. It will thus remain at where it is.

4. I will discuss in this talk page should a separate and additional section of Calvin Cheng as a socio-political commentator be made.

In totality, I'd like to thank you once more for your recommendations to this article. Khairulash (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi 180.255.248.132, I noticed that you have recently reverted the latest edit on Calvin Cheng. This latest edit was based on a discussion held between numerous Wikipedia editors, including Lemongirl942 (talk), myself and a few others. The discussion had spanned weeks, which you can refer to here. The latest edit is not a breach of NPOV. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you have any questions regarding this issue, you can leave a message here on this talk page. Thanks. Khairulash (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash:

You have obviously not understood the points that I am making. It is OKAY to include the ISIS remarks BUT include it as part as a section as a socio-political commentator.

For a BLP, the STRUCTURE of the article is important. Cheng has said many things throughout the years. You have pointed out TWO controversial things BUT there have been many uncontroversial things he has said. In order for the article to be balanced, you should include the two controversial things as part of a section that summarises the main and important things he has said as a commentator.

Please look at other BLP of other Singaporean politicians. They also have said controversial things. For example Vivian Balakrishnan who asked about meals in hawker centres and restaurants. Or Khaw Boon Wan who said the Workers Party should hara kiri. Is there a section on controversies on these? No of course not. A BLP isn't written like that.

Also, this article also lacks a section of his career as a politician in parliament which he has also said many things on social policies . Aricialam (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash:

Let me give you another and best example. This time not from Singapore but from the US.

Go to the BLP of Donald Trump. He has made the most controversial remarks recently.

Do you see a section that says "CONTROVERSIES"? Or "Controversy about Banning Muslims to US". Or "Controversy about killing the families of terrorists" (He said all of these).

No! Because a BLP isn't written like that.

Even his controversial remarks in his presidential campaign wiki page are not labelled CONTROVERSIES. They are included as part of his views on many many issues.

Please do more research on how to write a BLP before vandalising this page again. Thank you. Aricialam (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Please see my comments above. A separate section on controversies does not adhere to the structure of a BLP. See for example Donald Trump's page as cited above. Thank you Aricialam (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Khairulash: Hi, I had a look at both of your comments. While there might have been problems with the version Khairulash wrote, it consisted of quite a few reliably cited sources. Thus, there was no need to blank an entire chunk of the article. It could have been improved instead.

@Aricialam:, sorry, but please do not remove an entire chunk of the article as it is potentially disruptive editing. I am restoring the information as it has been well cited. As for the controversy section, at the moment there does not seem to be any other section where it can go to. I remember having suggested creation of a section on Socio-Political commentator. At the moment, I am working towards finding enough reliable sources to establish this fact. Once I find them, I support having this section. But till that time, the information about the controversy must stay on the page since it is reliably cited. We can always work and improve this version. I will read it properly and remove any not reliable citations and any language contravening NPOV. But I wouldn't delete a whole chunk of it.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Aricialam makes good points. A WP:BLPSTYLE will not have a section on one or two controversies sectioned "controversy" that jumps out. This is a widely held practice. 116.87.73.32 (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in Australian politics and Tony Abbott is also a controversial politician. His controversial views are under a section titled "Political Views'". This is my suggestion 116.87.73.32 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree and disagree with the Anon above. Agree with first comment. Second comment no. 'Political Views' is too general. I still suggest 2 sections. One on his career as a Parliamentarian and second as a socio-political commentator. If the section title is "political views" it will end up being too long. And if Khairulash has his way with his ulterior motives the ONLY view we will see under 'Political Views' would be Cheng's remarks on ISIS children. Which would be ridiculous. Whatever it is Khairulash should not be allowed to edit this page. He clearly has ulterior motives. Aricialam (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: A section with standalone "Controversy about ISIS" does NOT adhere to BLP style. Please see my examples on other politicians. It should come under a general section on views etc. Just because it is reliably cited does not mean it should stay if it makes the entire article unbalanced and non-neutral. Picking out one incident even if reliably cited amongst many comments is not neutral. Aricialam (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam: I humbly implore that you refrain from making any further personal attacks or allegations at me. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam: The article also has a section "Achievements and Appointments by Chronology". Does that make the whole article non neutral? Basically, I do not think that the article itself is totally biased. A BLP must present everything about a person and not only the achievements. If something has been widely cited in the media it should be reported. This particular incident was reported quite widely and there doesn't seem to be a guideline stating that a BLP article should not have a controversy section. Also, the incident is included because there seems to be more media coverage about it than the other statements of Cheng (for eg. the Alfian Sa'at or the response on Death of former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee.). As a result I do not find it justified to remove an entire chunk of an article. (In general, repeated content removal, particularly when widely and reliably cited, counts as disruptive editing. I would urge you not to do it. In this case for example, you have not only removed the section on controversies but also removed other content including the parts about Alfian Sa'at. In future, please be careful with your edits). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash:

I sincerely apologise. But please adhere to BLPSTYLE and how other politician's BLPs are written. Including far more controversial figures like Donald Trump. Otherwise it would seem to me you have an agenda. I do apologise if you do not. Aricialam (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942:

The Alfian Saat comment as you yourself argued has no credible 3rd party references and it fits badly in the section. If the incidences are neither 'achievements' and 'appointments' then what are they? No proper BLP has a 'controversy' section. As I said, have a look at other Singaporean politician's BLP. Or even US ones like Donald Trump's. And no - it is disruptive editing when you keep adding in content that does not adhere to the style of a BLP. Not removing it Aricialam (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A quick google search would show that Cheng has written in the papers Op-eds about homosexuality, trust in the government, the elected presidency, forms of government, taxing the wealthy, the death penalty, and a whole range of topics. I have no time to write a section on it. But to pick out 2 controversial comments is to be un-neutral. The ISIS comment comes up in the first few search hits because it is CURRENT. That's how google works. But again, compare with Donald Trump. His most recent remarks regarding Muslims and terrorist families do not warrant a separate section. That's how a BLP is written.Aricialam (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason why the ISIS comments are significant is because it led to response from multiple sources. That is one important requirement for notability.

The Donald Trump article you are talking about presents his view about banning Muslims as part of his presidential campaign which you can see here Donald_Trump#Muslim ban proposal and subsequent controversy  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: In the Donald Trump article, the controversy is a SUBSECTION of another SUBSECTION "Presidential Campaign 2016" of a SECTION heading"Politics". This has been my point over and over again. Sigh. It's not a standalone section! Just because it has multiple sources does not mean it should be included as a standalone point! It should be a subsection of a section that says "Political Views" or "Socio-Political Commentary" for the article to be balanced. Aricialam (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to state that balancing an article for the sake of balancing serves no purpose. The article contains a standalone section on "Achievements and Appointments by Chronology" and many of the stated points only have 1 citation. In this case, should we also remove this section and add the points into the relevant article sections? (I wouldn't do that, I would let this section be since it presents the information in a proper and concise manner. Similarly for the controversy section).  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest instead of arguing please just follow other politician's templates. Especially Singaporean politicians. Which of these has a "controversy" section? Aricialam (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Khairulash: Alright, so we follow this then Lee Hsien Loong#Controversies  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Lemongirl942: Fully agree with Lemongirl942. Khairulash (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Khairulash: Great! I assume this settles the debate then!  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: @Khairulash:

Can I suggest we use the sand-box to create a section on socio-political views which would include whatever controversial remarks Cheng might have said instead of engaging in an edit war? Thank you so much Aricialam (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Are you purposely ignoring everything that has been discussed here? Aricialam (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: The discussion was concluded and I pointed out that other Singaporean politicians also have a controversy section. The incident generated enough news coverage. I edited the article to include Cheng's clarification as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Which politician? If there is, it should be removed too. Aricialam (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Khairulash: I had already posted it before. Lee Hsien Loong#Controversies  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Personally, I think it should be removed. And secondly, you notice there are at least 5 subsections to warrant a separate section. One incident here for a separate section is WP:Undue.

@Lemongirl942: I suggest again humbly a separate section for socio-political commentator is started. Aricialam (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: It doesn't matter. The 5 subsections at one point must have started from one subsection. As long as there is cited information and there has been enough news coverage, it should be included. The section can be edited for brevity, but the information should be included in the page. In addition, please indent your comments Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Yes it matters. When you have enough incidents that warrant a separate section let's do it. At the moment it is more appropriate to put this as one remark in many articles he wrote as a socio-political commentator. It wouldn't be fair to mention this and contravenes WP:UNDUE to mention this without other articles that had a worldwide audience like his Huffington post piece on LKY Aricialam (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: The problem is that to start a section as socio-political commentator, there needs to be significant sources recognising him as such. I am not unwilling to start a new section about. But I clearly do not have enough references for it. A single article in Huffington post is not enough to start it. On the other hand, the "remarks on killing children of ISIS" incident has enough citations including Cheng's own response, multiple editorials, and at least 2 police reports being filed. I do not think the incident counts as WP:UNDUE as there has been enough news coverage. Just to compare, the article contains other information which have only 1 citation (in news articles). For example, the point about being a "Young Global Leader". Yet, it is still there in the article. My point is not to remove any existing information, but to add this information as well since it is well cited.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: No. If there are enough articles in well-respected media where he has written as a commentator, that is sufficient. You don't need someone to say "he is a socio-political commentator" to recognise him as such. BUT, here is a straits times article thats calls him that (point 4) http://www.smu.edu.sg/sites/default/files/smu/news_room/smu_in_the_news/2014/sources/jan6/st_20140104_1.pdf. It is undue to have its own section if you want to include it. Just like the model wages/price fixing incident should be part of section of him as a career in fashion, rather than in a Controversies section that his political enemies tried to put in under previously. Aricialam (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: The incident has enough reliable citations for it to warrant a separate section. Unlike the Alfian Sa'at remarks which have only 1 citation, this incident was widely played out in the media and multiple people responded. As such, I feel it can have it's own section. If you search news about Calvin Cheng, you will notice a good proportion of coverage to this incident. If there could be a separate section about "Achievements" which contains certain points with one citation each, I see no reason why a section about this incident can not be created.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Khairulash:@Reiuji: In addition, I remember there was a consensus on this issue before and another editor Khairulash (talk) had also advocated keeping the content. You can always edit the content for brevity but I don't believe it warrants removing the entire chunk of information.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: There was no consensus. In fact you yourself argued that it does not warrant a separate section. I am not saying remove it but include it in a section that discusses all his socio-political comments with just as many citations. If you only include this it is WP:UNDUE. It is obvious. Also there is a lot of coverage NOW because it is RECENT. This is another rule of WP:UNDUE - giving weightage to recent events just because there is more coverage of a recent or current event. It is a well-established BLP rule of thumb Aricialam (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Reiuji: I am sorry, but clearly consensus was reached between 2 editors.

I suggest instead of arguing please just follow other politician's templates. Especially Singaporean politicians. Which of these has a "controversy" section? Aricialam (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Khairulash: Alright, so we follow this then Lee Hsien Loong#Controversies  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Lemongirl942: Fully agree with Lemongirl942. Khairulash (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam:@Khairulash: Great! I assume this settles the debate then!  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
— snippet of earlier discussion from this section

In addition, my comments about not having a separate section were made at a time when the incident had not played out. I had since revised my opinion. Please read the comment thread carefully before commenting. If you argue using WP:UNDUE I could counter argue and remove the whole section on "Achievements" since the points in it can be embedded into the other sections. You do realise that the statement Cheng made led to many editorials and reactions. The news coverage was not due to a recent event. It happened over a period of time. I could point out many reports in the Singaporean national media including the one about police reports filed [21],[22],[23],[24]. In addition, the term "Controversial Comments" is not my own. It was actually reported in the press [25].  Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Verification of points in section "Achievements and Appointments by Chronology"

Point 1

@Khairulash:@Aricialam: Since we are looking at this article, we might as well look at everything. I would require your help in verifying these claims and the notability of these in the section Achievements and Appointments by Chronology [26]. Let's look at the first point.:
"In August 2005, Cheng was featured in Singapore's 40th independence day official commemorative video as one of 40 outstanding Singaporeans under 40."
The reference cited in this case [27] clearly does not state anywhere "40 outstanding Singaporeans under 40". It states rather "On Singapore's 40th Birthday, 40 Singaporeans from all walks of life reflect on their hopes and aspirations. Together, they form a mosaic that is distinctly Singaporean." Either the source needs to be updated or the WP:FLOWERY needs to be removed.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942:@Aricialam: I agree with this approach. With regard to this particular statement above, I agree that the reference does not support the statement--there is no mention of these Singaporeans being "under 40" or "outstanding". However, I have trawled through the Internet for other sources that may support this statement--and I have found one, here. The source is a Singapore Government Media Release, and is therefore reliable. It says, "This year's Video, titled "40 Today", produced by Mega Media Pte Ltd, looks to the future through the eyes of the post-independence generation. The Video showcases 40 young Singaporeans under 40 who shine in their own way and make up a mosaic that is uniquely Singapore. Amongst others, it features a volunteer who put her career on hold to lend a helping hand; a sportsman who triumphed against insurmountable odds to do Singapore proud and a reformed gang member who topped his cohort - securing 6 distinctions in the 2004 N-levels and many more unsung heroes of this generation - who share with the nation their hopes and dreams for themselves and for Singapore."

There is no mention, however, of these Singaporeans being "outstanding". To avoid WP:PEACOCK and WP:FLOWERY, I'd suggest a statement that simply states the fact as it is, i.e., that Cheng was featured in Singapore's 40th independence day official commemorative video as one of "40 young Singaporeans under 40 who shine in their own way". This would best comport with the reference that I have just found. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942:@Aricialam: EDIT: I just realised that I have overlooked a glaring and crucial omission: that none of these sources explicitly stated that Cheng WAS one of the 40 Singaporeans present in this commemorative video. The commemorative video itself is not available online. The statement is therefore a conjectural interpretation of a source. In light of this, I humbly feel that this statement should be removed. Thanks. Khairulash (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash: Thank you so much. Somehow, I overlooked that part too. I agree with you that until the video is somehow made available and it can be verified that Cheng is indeed featured in the video, it would be a good idea to not include this point in the article.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

cached article from straits times here that clearly mentions Cheng was in this video. The straits times also clearly states he was one of 40 outstanding Singaporeans under 40. Honestly if this article were left to the above two to edit nothing will remain. Careless, unprofessional editors lemongirl and khairulash. http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2009/02/singapore-5-on-list-of-young-global.html?m=1 14.100.135.48 (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 14.100.135.48. I just had a look at your link. While it seems OK on the surface, I have reason to believe it could be an instance of circular reference (see WP:CIRCULAR). For example the article here [28] states it has been published on 28 February 2009 and it apparently used the term '40 outstanding Singaporeans under 40'. I had a look at the history of this wikipedia article and if you look carefully at this edit [29], you will find the exact same phrase and it contains no citations. I have reason to believe that it could be an example of Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. As such, the best way to proceed would be to verify the video itself. At the moment, I am looking at ways to acquire the video and if I watch it, I can post the screenshots to prove that Cheng is featured on it. However, till the time it can not be verified, any claims must be looked at sceptically. This is what preserves the accuracy of wikipedia.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying the Straits Times quotes blindly from Wikipedia? Lol. Ok if you say so. 14.100.135.48 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to realise what you are saying. That Singapore's national broadsheet would make a claim that's not true. In print. And nobody corrected the reporter if Cheng did not actually appear in the video. Lol. 14.100.135.48 (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 14.100.135.48. I would like to reiterate that while I believe Straits Times is generally reliable, I cannot assume it prints correct information 100% of the time. Please understand that my sceptism is in good faith. Just to let you know, I am very close to acquiring an offline source of the video (hopefully in a couple of days) and I will be able to verify the fact soon.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If I were to take skepticism a bit further, even after you have viewed it and said he was in in, how do I know you are telling the truth? And if you take a screenshot, how do I know it's real? Given nobody knows who you are. See where I am going ? 180.255.248.99 (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 180.255.248.99. I'm glad you agree with my view point that being sceptic is healthy. I will be posting any screenshots, partial video recordings (if allowed) and of course the full details of the source. You can then obtain it independently by yourself and verify what I say. In case we come to different conclusions, we can always ask other users/admins to look up the resource and verify our respective claims. Thank you and hopefully it clarifies your query.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Khairulash: Have you had any luck so far? I will be able to get the source but not before Saturday due to the public holidays. Would you be able to get it sooner?  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you didn't get my point. I would rather believe the straits times than you. I don't know you. But I know the straits times. And no, you can't paste screenshots on this talk page. 180.255.248.121 (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to inform you, The Straits Times has also made mistakes. It is not unusual. (for eg, see this, and an example of content copying mistake). The reason why I am sceptical is because the phrase 40 outstanding Singaporeans under 40 seems to have been copied verbatim from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. No where else is this statement mentioned. Even another unrelated article mentions it as 40 Singaporeans under 40 who shine in their own special ways. Once again, please understand that my sceptism is in good faith. I am only trying to make sure that this point is genuine. This is done so that in the future, if this fact comes up, it can be verified. (Whatever answer I provide is up for verification. If you feel that I have made any factual mistakes, please let me know).  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I need to put in a fair word for Lemongirl942. I must commend her for her hard work and conscientiousness in research. Well done! :) Aricialam (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aricialam: Please read my comments regarding your latest edit. There are multiple citations which state it as "40 Singaporeans from all walks of life who shine in their own way". This link [30] from National Archives should be considered more reliable. In addition, this link [31] from MINDEF also states the same. These two links are considered more reliable than the link to the blog you posted. In addition, I also found this page [32] of another artist who was featured in the video. Notice that she states the same. There are multiple reliable citations which support my position while only 1 which supports yours. Please find multiple citations before editing.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: You are correct. I stand corrected. I will change to your version. Thank you and apologies. Aricialam (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I have changed this to your version. Aricialam (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aricialam: Thank you so much. I'm glad this point could be resolved. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Thank you too! You are a pleasure to discuss things with :) Aricialam (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)