Talk:Ho Yeow Sun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Billboard placement[edit]

Can anyone verify the assertions made about Billboard placement for Sun's various singles? I can't find any evidence that any of her songs actually charted in the US on Billboard's own website. Billboard does not and has not ever had a "Hot Dance Club Play 'Breakout' Chart" as far as I can tell. AC1 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Allegations[edit]

I am wondering if it is pertinent to start an article with allegations against a subject, especially if in the case of Poon, where the 'allegator' ;-) retracted their allegations. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/2148/poon-says-sorry-pastor-asks-church-to-forgive

I would think most people are innocent until proven guilty, so can we not apply the same standard to a person's reputation? Or must they be forever scarred just because someone makes any claim against them?

Why not create a new sub-section called "allegations and controversy surrounding sun" if you want to document the controversy.--TheThankful (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I created a separate section for the allegations, so that the music history focusses instead on that part of her life.--TheThankful (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There used to be one. As per the previous discussions on this very page, it was merged back into the body of the article. Jpatokal (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not think it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to create what looks like an argumentative and vindictive article. These revisions of yours make it look like a petty cheap shot. The controversies obviously should be presented, but not in the context of her musical output. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThankful (talkcontribs) 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the edits as they violated this part of WP:BLP - Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. --TheThankful (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think having a separate "Controversies" section gives much more prominence to the claims than having them in the article, no?
If someone comes to the article to find out about the controversies, they should be easy to find. If they come to find out about the music, we should not be thrusting controversies born in a Singaporean rumor-mill in their face. --TheThankful (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, your edits make it sound like "Poon" (who? your version never explains) was the only one "concerned", when it's obvious from the ST/Today articles [1] that there were many others involved. Jpatokal (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Poon was the one who went to the press with the financial issue. He later retracted. People may have had misgivings, but people always will. We do not report hearsay and rumor, but verifiable facts. Poon claimed some insider knowledge which apparently was found to be false, hence it should be in the article, especially if peoples misgivings were founded or increased on rumors resultant from his statements. Unless you've got a POV to push? ;-)--TheThankful (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That's right: we report verifiable facts like "the issue was splashed on the front cover of Today" and "the one guy who was foolish enough to give his name in public later apologized". However, "the allegation was true" or the "allegation was false" is not a verifiable fact; we simply don't know. See the difference? Jpatokal (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue is you do not make unproven allegations the main focus and feature of a musician's biography. Doing so gives biased validity instead of neutrality, as it IMPLIES guilt. How you report is as important as what you report. Otherwise any person can sabotage another's career simply by making a grossly untrue allegation and then retracting it. If I go to the papers and suggest Obama had sex with me, are we going to find that allegation the main focus of an article about him? Hardly. Neither should it be the case with Ho Sun. --TheThankful (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"The issue is you do not make unproven allegations the main focus and feature of a musician's biography." Devil's advocate - do note that it's much further down the article compared to "Musical Career". Not to mention the Controversy section contains one whopping paragraph compared to the gazillion paragraphs with 20+ citations in the Musical Career section. Pandacomics (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That would reflect the amount of coverage given to her music vs the controversies yes? I cannot invent citations for the controversies and put them in. It also as I said, allows for the presumption of innocence in a person and the nature of the reasons for her fame. 200,000 people do not turn up to a show because of a controversy over clothing, they go to listen to songs they like from a performer they like. Let the reasons for her notability be at the fore. Surely this stands with fame as well as notoriety. If a person gains notoriety because of a conviction or corruption scandal, surely you would make that the focus of the article? I just just think it's important to not let people vandalise a person's career just by throwing allegations around, and then having those allegations be at the forefront of an encyclopedia article. This is, as has been a BLP. As such, no matter what we think of her, she deserves an impartial article that reflects the facts concerning her career. --TheThankful (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


There used to be one. As per the previous discussions on this very page, it was merged back into the body of the article. Jpatokal (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As brought up by Jpatokal, this section was merged into the article after rounds of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanofsun (talkcontribs) 02:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fund Probe[edit]

Please keep to the necessary detail and not needlessly pad the article. I.e. number people questioned only needs to be mentioned once. If no arrests have been made, the fact need not be pointed out explicitly as it understood. Same with mention of legal representation, which is common for people being investigated (see the Durai and Ming Yi who also had legal representation). Unless the mention has any special meaning (i.e. the lawyer has done anything that is notable in the context of the article).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talkcontribs) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

why does the lead article have her being questioned by police????? People get questioned all the time without becoming a witness or having charges laid. It's poor form to start article this way as it's irrelevent to her music career. Diminishes the article with an apparent bias and agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.198.246.60 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the section, but moved it into a paragraph dealing with CHC. Jpatokal (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought of the day[edit]

While we'll never know for sure, I'd like to think that all the electrons spilled over this had at least a little something to do with this. So, all you church members who have done their darnedest to whitewash this article for years, would any of you care to admit that there was some fire behind this particular smoke? Jpatokal (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like its gonna be quite "hot" around here soon, I know we have all had trouble with whitewashers hereabouts, rubbing it in may just incite them to something drastic:P In any case, keeping the article neutral and clean (of bias) is still of utmost importance. And with the new info coming in from official sources now all the time its harder for rules to be bent to keep the case out of this article, which is a good development for completion's sake.Zhanzhao (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

whitewash[edit]

Why is content that is correctly and reliably sourced being deleted. This stinks of whitewash, purely claiming "BLP" every time that something does sound nice is not really the way to go forward or the way to avoid a 3RR report. Explain why you consider this content to be unacceptable as per BLP rules or it goes back. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Affair allegations removed. Kinda tabloid feel to it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Spacecowboy420, this reads like you wanted to pick a fight and then saw that the supposedly reliably sourced content was problematic. This whitewash claim is ridiculous, and you could have retracted it after you cut a bunch of BLP-violating stuff from the article. Let me add that I don't invoke the BLP lightly, and that as an administrator it is my sworn duty to uphold it.

    What we have now is better, but still not unproblematic. First of all, see WP:CSECTION: well, I could explain what's there, but it's clear enough. Second, the source, AsiaOne, is a news aggregator. Apparently the story originally came from The New Paper, and it would behoove you (and the IP editor) to get that original version, from a much more reliable source than what AsiaOne appears to be. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

To be more accurate, AsiaOne is a news aggregator but only of Singapore Press Holdings sources. The problem is that said sources includes some subsidiaries with questionable reliability/revifiability such as STOMP, which is mostly unregulated citizenship journalism, and HardwareZone, a forum. On an aside, I think the hacking incident warrants a mention as it was covered quite extensively. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Zhanzhao, interesting point, thank you. Look, what those who clamor about "censorship" frequently don't get is that we have to have neutrally written and relevant content, without undue weight, with reliable sources. If some incident is indeed covered extensively and reliably, and you can write it up concisely and neutrally, go for it. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Firstly, I certainly didn't come to pick a fight, that's why I posted on your (Drmies) talk page asking for opinions. It wouldn't hurt to assume a little good faith on my part. Secondly, from looking at Asia One the connection with The New Paper is really obvious, it's like Yahoo News sourcing from Reuters, the connection (and therefore source reliability) is there for everyone to see. If the deleting editor is aware of the link with The New Paper, then maybe it would be better for wikipedia and less confrontational to link to the more reliable source than just continuously remove content with comments along the lines of "for the last time READ the BLP", if "picking a fight" is something that you are that concerned about, please watch your comments as well as watching the comments/edits of others. Having said all of that, hopefully the combination of edits by all involved have made this article a little more stable, thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
My job is to uphold the BLP, not to investigate and whatnot to make text containing BLP violations more palatable; that's always the responsibility who adds or restores the information. Since AsiaOne is a portal, it may edit, tweak, modify, misrepresent, or otherwise butcher what once was proper journalism. Again, this is the responsibility of the adding/restoring editor. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Your job? No. The one element of editing that you have chosen to focus on, in a particular situation to avoid other duties that every single editor has? maybe.

It's the job of every editor to investigate sources. If we just deleted all content that wasn't backed up with a perfect source, without trying to find a better source, then wikipedia wouldn't have half the great content that is currently has. I delete content without sources or unreliable sources. But I always take the time to try to find a more reliable source before deleting. Asia one clearly states the source of the story at the bottom of their article and you have no reason to suspect them of altering the story. Sorry, but with the upmost respect, you won't find me agreeing with you on this issue, the source was good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)