Talk:Ho Yeow Sun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Singapore (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China / Entertainment (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Chinese-language entertainment taskforce (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Christianity / Charismatic (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.
 
WikiProject Pop music  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


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)