Talk:John Liu

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

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Fixed some controversial issues[edit]

I fixed some of the issues that seemed to be the talk of
some individuals. Some of the statements have
citations added, and I removed some of the otherwise
biased opinions that were plaguing this article. As for
more information on him, my forte isn't adding/researching
things but I'll add some things to the article. Most of the
bias has been removed but I left some of the things in 

(such as the views and accomplishments because they are correctly cited) because I saw no reason for it to be removed.

I will delete the notification at the top because I feel that it affects the general feeling of credibility of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthteller5482 (talkcontribs) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

John Liu's controversial anti-pedestrian and anti-bicyclist views[edit]

From 2013: From 2012: From 2009:

I'm probably not the best one to edit the article since I have a strong POV, but this seems an important topic when he's running for major in a city where there are more non-drivers than drivers! Even those of us with cars mostly just drive on the weekends anyway and consider ourselves pedestrians first. (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work[edit]

I added section heads, removed a great deal of non-encyclopedic, POV material, and tightened the writing. But the article is in dire need of citations as well as expansion if it is to be deemed notable enough to remain here. I don't have any other information about this person, so I got the ball rolling and hope that someone who has edited here will pick it up and turn this into more of an article. At present, it is a stub, and a fairly weak one at that. Good luck with it. Tvoz 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose move[edit]

To John C. Liu. It is unclear whether the councilman is the same person as John C. Liu of Firstrade. If not, disambig at John Liu must fork to Firstrade too. --Raijinili 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

particularly for asian[edit]

i dont like how this article says he is doing anything particularly for asians because when you fight discrimination, that helps all minorities, not just asians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Binghamton University Cleanup[edit]

I have changed "a part of the SUNY publicly-funded education system" to "a part of the SUNY system"

Binghamton University is a public institution but is funded both publicly and privately. The previous verbiage is otherwise awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I nominated this section of the article for a neutrality check for the following reasons:

  1. The overall tone of this particular section is not in sync with the overall tone of the article.
  2. The citation is to the Epoch Times, which is owned by the Falun Gong Practitioners. The problem with it is that they are the source that are most likely to blow up the situation.
  3. The Epoch Times has a history of mudslinging this politician.
  4. The violence has stopped, while the article claims that it has continued "unabated".
  5. The Epoch Times fails to mention that the violence was incited from a sign they put up that said that it was "good" that the Sichuan Earthquake killed so many because it was the CCP's fault they persecuted Falun Gong "and the Chinese People".
  6. Not taking the above reason into consideration, they also held up alot of traffic by blocking buses, which might take into consideration why people were not happy to see them.
  7. Lastly, I've googled everywhere but I can't seem to find any other source about this. I've searched the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc. The only place where I can find this is the Epoch Times and a clip from a News Station called NDT, which is also owned by Falun Gong. If these incidents were as bad as the section of this entry suggest, there should by many, many more organizations reporting on this other than the newspaper and television station that are owned by Falun Gong. We need more sources, preferably from sources that can be trusted for their integrity, not newspapers that have a history non-neutrality.

I don't hate Falun Gong, I have no problem with it,and I'm not some CCP party official, or sympathetic to the CCP, or a John Liu official, but I think Falun Gong's reaction is being blown way out of proportion. Probably nothing will happen to this, because there are alot of Falun Gong practitioners on Wikipedia. Oh well, at least I tried. Henry1469 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Source[edit]

I would like to concur with Henry1469's comment on the neutrality of the source. The Epoch Times article does seem very one-sided and seems to make allegations and claims that have not been reported by other sources or any newspapers of record such as the New York Times or local papers such as the Daily News or the New York Post. The source cited in the Wikipedia entry also makes no mention of John Liu.

FreeVoz (talk)

The Epoch Times are run by the same pro-Falun-Gong protesters who claimed that the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake was God's will; it was this claim that sparked the violence referred to by this section. (talk)

Actually, this information is mistaken. Falun Gong practitioners had been holding up banners "Heaven will eliminate the Chinese Communist Party" in NY even before the earthquake, to promote the movement to withdraw from the Communist Party. After the earthquake, Chinese media reported (falsely) that the banners referred to the earthquake. Then, Chinese organizers living in New York started organizing people to attack the practitioners. Some of the organizers were subsequently convicted of assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2009-09-26T03:53:36

Moved from Taiwan to New York[edit]

Did his family move here legally or illegally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2009-03-09T00:12:35

Propose move[edit]

I added the Epoch Times controversy because it did occur; there was a controversy with the Epoch Times. I also reverted the changes with the Waldheim rezoning matter. It seemed well-sourced and was removed summarily. I updated the controller race. Darkmeridian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Cleaning Bot[edit]

Someone keeps removing sections that are well-sourced and important because they are not positive to John Liu. The controversy about his childhood during the controller race is important, and well-sourced. Don't remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2009-09-18T17:48:27

I disagree, the writing was very POV. The two sources came from a respected newspaper, however, if anyone research this topic, you will see that the same writer, Erin Einhorn, at the Daily News has been writing the same article day after day. Especially after the paper's endorsement to John Liu's opponent, the section itself becomes obviously POV and needs reworking. It should be removed until a better section is written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweat Shop Controversy[edit]

A big issue in the Comptroller campaign arose after Liu claimed to have worked in a sweat shop as a child. He parents denied this claim. Should this be added in? There are major papers which wrote about it. Rafe34 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Restoring balance[edit]

I just did some work on the 'controversies' section, which were astonishingly thin and poorly sourced (they didn't even include the NYT series of articles from the fall). The campaign finance controversies are extremely notable, and I think deserve as much space as they are given. In fact, they might merit a separate article, as they implicate two other individuals, and I don't like having too much of that kind of stuff in BLP. However, now the article is somewhat unbalanced. I will try to revisit it when I have time and add more (relevant, notable) details elsewhere to the page. I would also encourage others to do so.Homunculus (duihua) 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's this[1].Homunculus (duihua) 20:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits.[edit]

This alarming series of edits by User:Homunculus seriously violates some fundamental policies of this encyclopedia. Namely, in decreasing importance, WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE (and by extension WP:SYNTHESIS). Sources which are placed out of context and/or skewed to paint a thoroughly anti-Liu article is striking. As such, I would like to seek a third-party opinion on reverting all of Homunculus' revisions to this page in the past few days. Colipon+(Talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Colipon. Please see the discussion topic I started above, where I explicitly address my own concern that my edits may lead to undue weight being given to controversies. I said that I would remedy this by either building out other parts of the page, and/or creating a separate article to deal with allegations related to Liu's campaign staffers. I also invited other editors to partake in this effort. I will note, however, that the controversies around Liu have come to define his tenure over the last six months or so, and are extremely notable (do a google news search for his name, and tell me if you disagree). If you believe that I misrepresented the sources (almost all New York Times), I'm happy to review the sources with greater scrutiny. I do not believe that I misrepresented sources, however, nor do I think that I engaged in original synthesis; I was careful with all the content i added to adhere to strict interpretations of the articles' content. I also corrected false information (eg. previous page said Liu was charged with fraud. He was not). If you were to revert, you would restore a version of the page that misrepresented the sources of contentious claims, made unsupported accusations about Liu, and contained almost no information on the campaign finance investigations that have become the defining feature of Liu's political career, and about which hundreds of RS articles have been written. Homunculus (duihua) 18:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Your statement that "campaign finance investigations... have become the defining feature of Liu's political career" is an extraordinary statement that needs extraordinary sources — BLP policy also applies to talk pages. Also, I would not tout your ability to self-police, considering that the person you asked to help 'balance' your massive controversy expansion was responsible for adding only negative information to this article, including claims that Liu was a Fifth Column sourced to shoddy web sources like Renminbao, and for including the "source misrepresentation" and "unsupported accusations" that you complain about. Keeping or rejecting all of your edits is a false choice: we can keep your simple corrections, examine the amount of unfruitful allegations covered, and quarantine the excessive and venomous newspaper judgments of the man. Shrigley (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I solicited Benjwong's help to balance the article because, among frequent contributors to the page, he is the only editor still active on it. I didn't delve into his editing history. Try not to read insidious intent into everything. As for extraordinary claims, I don't think my statement on the notability of campaign finance problems satisfied the definition for an extraordinary claim about a living person. Nonetheless, I believe that extraordinary sources (and an extraordinary volume of sources) would support my interpretation of the notability of the campaign finance scandal. Here's a google search with parameters set to the last five months.[2] Nearly every single result addresses the scandal to some degree or other; it features prominently in most coverage. Would you not agree that the scandal has come to define Liu's career over the last several months? Does my writing that—on the talk page, no less—really merit warnings of BLP violations? Homunculus (duihua) 21:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Civic Accomplishments Section reads like a campaign advertisement[edit]

The section on Civic Accomplishments reads like a campaign advertisement. All sources for accomplishments are the comptroller's website during the period that John Liu was comptroller. I actually have no idea if he did accomplish those things, but there is a strong perception of bias in that section. (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)George