Talk:Calvin Cheng/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

First paragraph

The article's introduction mentioned the controversial Facebook incident in which Cheng was involved, but in a way that could make readers think it was the most important controversy in this person's life (which is not the case, seeing that he has also expressed other opinions deemed polemical). Given that all the controversies in which Cheng has partaken are referred to in detail in the "Life and career" section, I find it unnecessary to make this particular controversy stand out over the rest. With this in mind, I have removed the references to said controversy only from the first paragraph.--Raymond Gelow (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Raymond Gelow, What you are calling "the first paragraph" is called the "lead", and what we do there, is described in WP:LEAD. The lead summarizes the body. If you don't understand what the lead does, please ask. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The lede in its current form is absurd, I don't think it complies with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Biographies_of_living_persons. NPOV is not about fighting fire with fire.

Both the list of businesses and making of remarks of one specific incident on Facebook should be gone. It needs to be more general and be reflective of what he is known for:

• He is a businessman and former politician.
• He was appointed as a Nominated Member of Parliament for 21 months,... (this was the role he was best known for)
• ...and prior to that was a member of young PAP. (this provides sufficient context to readers he was an establishment politician).
• He (still) often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, sometimes attracting controversy for his views. (Other examples: <http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/arts/former-nmp-calvin-cheng-government-should-stop-funding-the-arts>, <https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/04/10/former-sph-reporter-ismail-kassims-responds-to-former-nmp-calvin-cheng-about-the-tudung-issue/>, <https://asiancorrespondent.com/2015/04/should-singapore-stick-to-its-6-9m-population-target-a-response-to-calvin-cheng/>. So this should be general. We can have all the details after the lede.)
• He began his business career in the fashion industry, but has since been involved in educational technology as co-founder of Retech in China. (he has media coverage of his involvement in this business)

- Mailer Diablo 17:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mailer diablo (pinging you, as I don't know if you watchlisted this). Thanks for weighing in here. It is good to have more actually independent editors getting involved.

The lead summarizes the body, right? The actual body of the article.

Let's start with the facebook comment thing.

Right now there is nothing in the body about controversial things he has said other than the "killing children of terrorists" bit, and as far as I have seen that was by far the most inflammatory/controversial thing he has done based on the amount of coverage -- and that in turn seems to have been driven by the fact that he was on the committee about internet civility at the time.

So, how should we handle that stuff in the body in your view? Once we resolve that we can definitely rethink the lead, with regard to that....

Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Keeping WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in mind, research and review all the relevant sources. That might mean looking for more (and newer) reliable sources. There are some additional sources above I appended that can be reviewed. My point here is that it is not just that one matter in 2015, the subject is known for generally expressing his socio-political views on Facebook about other issues as well that has gotten attention from the media, as recent as this year, and that should be acknowledged as well. <See http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/big-read-facebook-era-whither-quality-public-discourse "...is an outspoken public figure who has not shied away from putting his views out on his Facebook page, however controversial they may be, and engaging other users online — even if it means attracting brickbats...">

I don't watchlist articles. - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Mailer Diablo thx, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I have been looking for high quality refs that discuss his online behavior overall that we can summarize (instead of collecting incidents, which I do not think is good practice), and have been having a difficult time. Some of that is because this is very in-Singapore stuff and the media there is either very close to government or ... blogs. The killing children bit is one of the few that actually made it into real media, that i have found. In any case, will sit tight. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added the proposed changes. There are other personal comments he has made on Facebook that has attracted flak, but unfortunately I can't add any para-phrases due to Singapore law (they come from non-establishment sources) and quoting is also an issue (quoting the whole thing is too long, and quoting parts risks going out of context). You can have a look under a Google News search and see if there is anything you think is noteworthy of inclusion, keeping BLP policies in mind. - Mailer Diablo 20:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been at this article for a while and have looked a lot. The todayonline ref is not great but is OK. this is good enough for me. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Do keep a lookout for any attempts to re-add promotional material/achievements as well. Going through the article history, this BLP has been lurching back and forth in terms of POV. If the NPOV balance is upset again I don't know what's going to happen next, but I know it won't be a pretty sight. - Mailer Diablo 20:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog and User:Mailer diablo: I think the lead has now been properly fixed up: it summarizes the article's content without focusing too much on a single controversy. Aside from that, I would like Jytdog not to assume beforehand that most editors are newbies or have a conflict of interest/engage in undeclared paid editing. Personally, I have been editing Wikipedia in Spanish for almost 2 years, the last one as a pending changes reviewer and rollbacker user, so I certainly know what leads are (had I not known it, I couldn't have written a featured article there). Moreover, throwing baseless accusations of potential edit warring leads nowhere, and above all it constitutes a breach of WP:GF. I beg you to think twice before interacting with other editors in such a disdainful way.--Raymond Gelow (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with including "Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known to attract controversy at times for doing so." This is a bit of a blanket statement based on a single reference. While his posts on Facebook have attracted flak from other facebook users, most haven't created a media controversy (responses on blogs are not controversies). The only significant one is the comments by him when he was part of the MLC (which is because he was part of the MLC). We go by WP:WEIGHT of coverage and from what can be seen, this is the only one which offers so much coverage.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There are actually a number of controversies he stirred with his facebook comments. I.e. Offhand I recall his recent posted opinion that the government should stop funding the arts, and his facebook attack on Dr Ian Chong while still part of the Media Literacy Council, but the biggest one was his "kill kids before they become terrorist" quote. That actually resulted in police reports and an investigation that lasted close to a year before he was eventually cleared - but he was investigated all the same, and this was widely reported as well by the main stream media. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What is a "controversy" is supposed to be defined by weight in reliable sources. The MLC incident was a controversy due to the amount of coverage. The same cannot be said for the comments about arts (which attracted a single report) in ST.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

BukitBintang8888 DO NOT make changes this article that all Editors except you have consensus about. Historicalchild (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering that you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article at all. Neither are you a good judge of what is consensus. So please discuss here on the talk page. I see that you have been blocked once. Contunue this and you will end up being blocked indefinitely.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mailer diablo User:Raymond Gelow see latest changes by BukitBintang8888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicalchild (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

BukitBintang8888 You did not discuss it, you posted an objection to the consensus article by Raymond Gelow, Mailer Diablio and JYTDog, (User:Zhanzhao) disagreed with you as well, and you went ahead and edited it anyway Historicalchild (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I provided policy based reasons about the weight of coverage. See my previous comment. Every small incident is not supposed to be mentioned. Only the ones which generated enough news coverage. I see that you have reverted a second time now. This is no longer a content issue but a behavioural issue and I will bring it up at the noticeboard. This is one of the worst cases of conflict of interest editing I have seen.--BukitBintang8888 (talk)• —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And you should wait for Mailer Diabloo, JYTDog, and Raymond Gelow to reply before you go editing. You only attracted ANOTHER objection. I have no COI. Just pissed off with the amount of effort put in by non-independent Editors such as yourself trying to put the subject in a negative light and trying tro provide some balance. I suggest you wait for the other independent editors’ response to you Historicalchild (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And User:BukitBintang8888 I did not revert to something I edited. I reverted your changes to something some one else edited after a lengthy discussion here. Historicalchild (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You and I are obviously locally-based or at least close enough to have our own bias. Let the independent Editors NOT from Singapore/Malaysia handle this please User:BukitBintang8888 Historicalchild (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is amazing[1].--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I am fine with the more general lead as of this version.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:BukitBintang8888 Your last edit destroys the flow User:Jytdog worked hard to write. He has done a lot of work to make the article NPOV, together with User:Mailer diablo. Both experienced editors with no connection to Singapore or Singaporean politics. Please leave it and take your anti-establishment anti-Calvin Cheng posts away. Historicalchild (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The original flow by Jytdog was like the one as here. The MLC incident was in context of the sentence of his appointment to MLC. And quoting you He has done a lot of work to make the article NPOV, together with User:Mailer diablo.Both experienced editors with no connection to Singapore or Singaporean politics., looks like you are clearly wrong about Mailer Diablo. So anyway basically, if we only look out for non-SG/MY editors, perhaps let Jytdog have a look and let me know they disagree with my edit/--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe its time to request for full page protection and seek a third opinion. This is a full out edit war. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with the new lead by Jytdog as it is more general about everything (business and political career). I simply changed the flow to put the MLC incident along with the existing line about MLC. This is how it has been for a long time. I have not added or removed any content. --BukitBintang8888 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

:User:Mailer diablo See JYTDog’s latest insertion. ‘Cyberbulling’. Nowhere has the subject been objectively labelled as a cyber bully Historicalchild (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've changed that to something more factual. As a BLP, I will err to a bit on the side of caution. - Mailer Diablo 04:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And i will bring that to BLPN. That change fails NPOV in my view. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done here Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to offer an explanation, and definitely open to alternatives. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed that User:Jytdog has been using references from The Independent SG. This is a blog run by the Workers’ Party of Singapore, founded by Leon Perera and thus IMHO a compromised source when writing an article about a person aligned to the PAP. What do other editors think? 43.252.213.40 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

All media in Singapore try to set their own agendas. A mix of sources from both mainstream and alternative media is preferable where Singapore politics is concerned. By your reasoning, I too notice that all Singapore Wikipedia articles have been using references from Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp. Mediacorp is controlled by Temasek Holdings, while Straits Times has been chaired by several PAP ministers, employing many former statutory board directors, PMO aides and even former ISD agents as management and journalists. Would you consider these compromised sources as well when they are writing an article on opposition politicians? Alternative media sometimes approach issues that mainstream media journalists cannot and dare not touch on, such as when TMG mused on MPs doing work on laptops during parliament sessions (and entertaining revelations such as Ashley Wu). The Independent definitely has a strong anti-establishment bias, but I believe the good old editors here can distill the facts from their articles. 103.212.223.3 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Erm..I don’t think the two are comparable. Mediacorp and SPH are multimillion dollar professionally run media companies that hire professional journalists with decades of history (Straits Times more than 100 years). Temasek owns almost everything in Singapore - DBS Bank, SMRT, the bus companies, singapor airlines etc etc and ex PAP ministers sit on all their boards. So how can we say that they are all compromised? On the other hand, these blogs like The Independent, TMG, AllSingaporestuff, The online citizen etc are run by a couple of people from their homes. TMG (the middle ground) has even recently announced its shutting down as they are no longer viable. I don’t think any of these ‘alternative sources’ essentially run by a couple of hobbyists should be quoted for any Singapore Wiki articles. It’s not like they are a Huffingtonpost. They are not. 43.252.213.40 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, professionals writing with no journalistic integrity can cause more problems than hobbyists running news websites from their home. Alternative media serves its useful purpose here on Wikipedia to provide an angle where state media refuses to cover. So, no, there should be no blanket ban on alternative news sources on Wikipedia. Jane Dawson (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw your discussion and know your stand on this User:Jane Dawson. I am afraid I have to agree with User:Zhanzhao on this. How do we decide which blogs to use? Many of these in Singapore are literally one-man activists blogging. The only outfit with any sort of corporate structure is Mothership. 43.252.213.37 (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

When you are in doubt of what to use as a source, leave it to other editors with more experience than you do. I am not sure whether Zhanzhao share your opinion, but it is certainly quite disingenuous to falsely attribute an opinion to someone uninvolved in our discussion. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that ST and Mediacorp are compromised sources. I was referring to User talk:43.252.213.40's original argument, that a source is compromised because it is a blog funded by the an opposition politician, seemed unfair and flawed to me. Those blogs run 'from homes' by 'a couple of hobbyists' also had to put up $50,000 bonds to the government in order to publish online, and are bound by MDA regulations and defamation laws. ST has a track record of preemptively running opinion pieces, surveys and articles to support forthcoming government policy changes, functioning somewhat as a government comms sub-unit when it comes to local politics. "[Govt/PAP politician] rebuts [so-and-so]" is also a fairly common headline (even when it was a lame rebuttal).(ref) They are not known to run any articles critical of figures related to the establishment, and the subject's association with Young PAP may have prevented them from reporting news objectively. To me, by doing so, they have set the bar low for their journalistic standards to become comparable with those socio-political websites run by part-time editors. Not to mention SPH's current managing editor of English/Malay/Tamil Media is essentially a lifestyle blogger. The point about ST having a 100 yr history is also debatable, as the government has completely changed Straits Times Press's editorial policies since it came into power. To find common ground, I agree the substance and style of writing is lacking for most alt sources, with very little original legwork, and the anti-establishment slant is annoying. But even with better funding, professional journalists and copyeditors, there are still a myriad of local issues and independent expert opinions that are shunned by mainstream media due to OB markers and self-censorship. Take for instance, TMG (with only 2 regular writers) was the only source that had a detailed interview with Salleh Murican after the presidential non-election, shedding some light on the opaque system of determining a candiate's eligibility, whereas Straits Times was already running congratulatory and reconciliatory headlines. Sure, Independent and Mothership are clickbait-ty, but they are good at documenting online socio-political discourse and mainstream media faux pas that MSM wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. I suggest that these MDA-licensed alternative sources should only be used when MSM ignores a newsworthy issue (or it was reported but with a clear bias and omitting certain facts) and that the alternative news source is verifiable. My opinion is that we simply do not have the luxury of choice when it comes to Singapore-related articles. By the way, Belmont Lay and gang have their own agenda too. I don't think having a "corporate structure" is that relevant in this discussion. 103.212.223.3 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we know MSM is ignoring? How do we judge clear bias? Going down a rabbit hole here. The Independent for example has been called out for fake news quite a few times. Even by the Malaysian Government which they had to apologise for. I would say Mothership and TMG (now defunct) are verifiable. But TOC, Independent, ASS, States Times review are all veering on fake news sites (TOC is not, but its essentially an op-ed blog). 43.252.213.37 (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

We rely on international organizations for judging bias. RSF and the press freedom index for instance is a good indication of how reliable and independent the mainstream media can be.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The IndependentSG is fake news. And RSF ranks press freedom of a country not credibility of a media. The UK ranks highly on press freedom, but Wikipedia has banned the Daily Mail as a source. The Sttraits Times is a highly respected broadsheet internationally. Only a rabid opposition activist from Singapore would say otherwise Historicalchild (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what Donald Trump said when news are not written in his favour. Would you be man enough to accept a sock puppet investigation into your account, previously named Juicebaby (Calvin Cheng is director of Juice magazine), with the indefinitely blocked account User:Aricialam and other possibly related IPs 43.252.213.37, 43.252.213.40?

References

--Jane Dawson (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think no one can even object if you want to do a sockpuppet request for any editors here right?. But would you, miss "Jane Dawson" be woman enough to provide some evidence of your claim "I am a political science student at Harvard"? You can snap your Harvard-ID card against today's newspaper, while blanking out your personal details if you wish. This will go some way to establishing your credibility.122.11.164.251 (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Jane Dawson, with regards to the comment above, please be careful of WP:PRIVACY. There is absolutely no need to reveal any personal information on Wikipedia. Credibility on Wikipedia depends on how we follow the policies and demonstrate our understanding of the 5 pillars , not on what we do in real life. Btw, a Harvard id card and newspaper could contains copyrighted logo/text, so you are not allowed to upload it here or link it either.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe 2 sock puppet investigations were already done on my account. I have even stopped editing this article directly Historicalchild (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there will be more to come if you continue to engage in disruptive behaviour. FYI, IPSOCK is also socking. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Schools

The yahoo article is not a reliable source for the school. It names the headmaster, not the school. In any case the high school for somebody who is well into their adult career is trivia. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Jytdog I have no intention of edit warring. I was looking at the alumni tags for the major schools in Singapore on a whim and noticed Cheng is conspicuously missing from his school's alumni list. Cheng has spoken up on junior college mergers recently, and also on the sex education in Hwa Chong conducted by a Christian group as an alumni. I do not think adding schools to his article, or for any other SG politician is mere trivia. Singapore is extremely small, many relationships between future political leaders, civil servants and businessmen are forged in their schooling days and the information is significant. I hope other editors familiar with Singapore can weigh in on this issue. I have never seen any policy to delete high school information for BLP articles of adults, if so, I hope Jytdog will be consistent and remove high school information for all other BLP articles too to be fair.185.206.225.145 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That is not the point: the point is a lack of reliable sources. Please don't give us that passive-aggressive crap about other BLP articles. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Jytdog, I see this article has a way-too long protection log; most recently Callanecc protected it for a month. I will be more than happy to semi-protect this for much longer (think a year or more) if disruption breaks out again. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be lovely. I had just requested it at RPP. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for more editors to look at this page

Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) Limtohhan (talk · contribs) Raymond Gelow (talk · contribs) Mailer Diablo (talk · contribs) Only in death (talk · contribs) Fish and karate (talk · contribs) Collect (talk · contribs) Huggums537 (talk · contribs) Your input appreciated Historicalchild (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That set of pings violates WP:CANVASS. See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As per my talk page threat by Jytdog (talk · contribs), I am also pinging Jane Dawson (talk · contribs) and BukitBintang8888 (talk · contribs) to balance up the discussion Historicalchild (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a threat. We topic ban people who are consistently disruptive. That is what we do. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes but please help me along by suggesting it. I never even heard of canvassing and ANI until you brought it up! Historicalchild (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at the page. While I'm not familiar with the subject matter, it seems to me that this page is in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:DUE. It's clear that this person is most notable for his politics, but the "Business career" section reads like a personal CV listing trivial and non-notable achievements, while what he is actually notable for has been relegated to "other activities". The whole career section needs a re-write and trim, a newly named politics section should contain most of the content, while there should also be a "controversy" section since he appears to be somewhat controversial. Seems to me to be yet another case of article whitewashing by Singapore's 50 cent army.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your giving the political angle too much credit. The puffery seems to me mainly in regards to his "commercial accomplishments". If anything, his barely-there involvement with politics was used to boost his corporate profile. A quick check on earlier editing history shows quite a number of SPAs popping in, buff up his business accomplishments, then get either banned or abandoned. There was one instance where his article got updated with a newslink almost as soon as the article went live. Either some fanatic supporter of his is at work or something worse. This article definitely needs some more eyeballs on it. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ZZ. Which means if you pare down the commercial, add that he wasn't a real politician, it means that this article is prime candidate for deletion. Do it. 118.189.8.225 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that a "Nominated" MP is actually an unelected member and he didn't serve a full term. This is started to look more and more like a soapbox to me. There should probably be a discussion on whether this person is notable or not, but there should be a mass removal off puff regardless. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the image used for the article seems to give no sources and was uploaded by a user banned for socking and which again seems to be another COI editor. I'll be nominating for deletion over at commons unless someone can find a source where it is published under an acceptable license. So far there seem to be no pages related to Singapore politics which aren't full of issues like this.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank for volunteering your time to make Wikipedia a better place. Please go ahead and make bold edits where you see fit. There should not be an issue if you follow the policies on Wikipedia and contribute in a constructive manner. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I got rid of some of the ridiculous puff on the business section. It's sufficient to say he headed the Asia-Pacific division of the company without then having to pointlessly list the responsibilities typically expected of such a position. Also gone are things he was planning to do since if they weren't done, they're not notable and if they were done, they belong on the company's page, not here. The fact that his company was restructured into a holding company or that there was an IPO for USD 13 million is also gone - that's not a lot of money and a company worth that little would be unlikely to have an article on WP. This part reads less like his own personal CV and more like a concise series of notable events. Again, I'm doubting if this person is notable enough to have an article and it seems like it was created and maintained by numerous editors with the sole purpose of self-promotion.

I have also nominated the photo for deletion on commons since it's a clear copyright violation. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

SegataSanshiro1 Just a small quibble - subject was not fined. His agency was. At this stage, with the article in its present state, best nominate the article for deletion. Too much energy is being wasted over too long a time by the community on this IMHO 118.163.180.34 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

SegataSanshiro1 Done! Nominated for deletion. OppieSG (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

IP account, if by "small quibble" you're referring to orchestrating the collusion between 10 companies to fix prices while standing as a Member of Parliament, that's a pretty big deal and possibly the most notable thing on this page - it would be insanity to suggest otherwise. Seeing multiple calls by IP accounts to delete this page, if the agenda here is to remove that information by COI editors, then I strongly suggest opening sockpuppet investigations with some of the troublesome COI editors listed on the talk page. Nominating for deletion without proper discussion and considering these circumstances seems hasty at best.

You are factually wrong. The period of infringement was 2005 to 2009. He was in Parliament 2009-2011. You have also deleted the whole context. The association was set up to raise model wages. Model wages are also model prices. Wages were raised, so prices were raised. One and the same. It’s an important context. I am associated with Tembusu Partners and have a conflict of interest but these are facts in public domain. 111.223.120.194 (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no (factual) evidence in the linked articles to suggest that model wages were raised, only unsubstantiated claims of such "noble" intention. Therefore it is WP:UNDUE to assert so. Jane Dawson (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Model rates are model wages. The agencies are middlemen who take a cut from this. The agencies were fined for succrssfully cooperating to raise rates/prices, which means they raised wages. They are the same thing. It is in the newspaper article. 111.223.120.194 (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, price and wage are too different things. An agency can raise price without raising wages by taking a bigger cut. There is no evidence to suggest wages were raised, only unsubstantiated claims. Jane Dawson (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Interrupting here and annoyed just from reading this exchange. The user above needs to read the links in the article she herself posted. In the CCS decision, they noted that model commissions remain unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.228.63 (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Price fixing is price fixing. Even CCS can see through such nonsense. You don't need a collusion to raise model wages. Jane Dawson (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this point that COI editors on Singapore-related pages aren't aware by this point that engaging in this sort of behavior has the opposite result than intended. With each comment and edit done to these pages, the level of insanity is becoming more and more evident. This is a serious problem and I have not seen anything on this scale elsewhere on Wikipedia. Good job. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New edits by Jane Dawson (talk · contribs)

Please do not remove sourced content by Jytdog (talk · contribs). Also he has spent a lot of time trying to build a neutral BLP article. I would really suggest Singaporean editors whether pro or anti PAP to stop editing this article and leave it to the foreign editors with no COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicalchild (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Those edits I made are in accordance to Wikipedia policies. For example, this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/814359263 , my rationale is "WP:SYNTH, contrary to what was stated, all three sources quoted did not mention why he started his business in the modelling industry." If you object, please provide your rationale here. Saying things like someone already spent effort to make sure BLP is neutral is not good reason enough. And personal attacks like labelling editors as anti-government, pro-goverment doesn't help either. Thanks. Jane Dawson (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also all the CCS links on the blog “Redwire Times” do not work”. Redwire Times is not a credible source Historicalchild (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Mailer Diablo I have also left a message on Jytdog’s Talk page. Elaboration of positive things is seen as WP:Undue by anti-estab editors, but elaboration of negative news from 10 years ago is not WP:Undue?? Historicalchild (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The content that Jane Dawson removed was fine and I restored it, and the content that Jane Dawson added was fine and I restored it. The refs in the ref do not have to work for it to be valid.Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk · contribs) What about your sourced content that was removed? Also why is one WP:Undue and the other isn’t ? Historicalchild (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You are not responding to what i did and what i wrote above. Please don't ping me or come to my TP to talk about this article. I am watching it and I see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk · contribs) Why was removal of your sourced content of Elite and Ford ok? That’s what I meant. Historicalchild (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You are still not paying attention. Stop wasting my time. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk · contribs) Oh I see. Got it sorry! Historicalchild (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to stop pinging me. WP:THREAD your posts. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog. Jane Dawson’s description is wrong. The CCS is not a court. Also in order to retain BLP, we should elaborate it was dismissed only because Cheng was not a party to the decision so could not appeal. Historicalchild (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the commitment you made here. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You know I have done so for a long time :( refrained. But when COI editors from the other side of politics continue with what I am refraining from it is hard. :( Historicalchild (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No you have not. I have removed "in court" per your objection to that. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If Jane Dawson’s elaboration is allowed based on a anti-Government blog, then let’s take the following article from mainstream media into consideration too for balance. http://archive.is/bX6Lh (“Agencies which fixed prices had 'noble goals') Historicalchild (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think relying on sources from Singapore Press Holdings is really in line with WP:RS, considering they essentially have a monopoly on the media and very close ties to the government. Straits Times is even listed as a potentially unreliable source, so the others should be too with the same rationale. As an aside, the Singapore Press Holdings is also awash with the usual issues. I'm starting to think all these pages are beyond repair and energy would be better spent elsewhere.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly user Historicalchild is engaging in WP:Stonewalling tactic to wear down editors here in order to maintain status quo. Instead of discussing why changes should not be made, he make unwarranted accusations in bad faith against those who edited the article. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to BukitBintang8888 for restoring the information about AMIP's role in the price fixing; it makes the event clearer.

Also, I have added two references on the Young PAP issue and added some details to that episode.

In addition, I have reorganized the "political life" section to make it two parts: a chronological listing of Cheng's activities in public service roles; and then a description of his public statements and the related controversies. --Bistropha (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Two police reports?

The article has been saying that there were two reports to the police about Cheng's terrorism comment on Facebook, but I have only found one report mentioned in the three references cited. Is it correct that two reports were filed, and is there documentation of that fact? -- Bistropha (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

the two are mentioned here [2][3] one by Augustin Lee Tze Shih and a guy verified by Today newspaper who only wanted to be known ah Nuh. I vaguely recall Cheng's case being mentioned by the official police(? or AGC) report on Amos Yee too, but I cannot find the pdf. Sorry about replying under an IP. Thanks to all the editors who are keeping this article sane. 185.206.225.133 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I have add these to the article. --Bistropha (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement: NPOV and clarity

In the lede and the body of the article, there are references to "strong views". The term "strong" is an opinion, so I recommend dropping it.

Also there are references to "controversy", but the article is vague about the disputes. If the article is to discuss criticism of Cheng or his statements, at least one critic should be identified in the text of the article, whether that be a person, an organization, or a publication; and there should be some indication of what criticism was said in that episode.

From my initial reading of the article, it seems that mentioning the Facebook comments dispute in the lede probably gives it undue prominence. IMHO the actions of politicians and businessmen are usually more important than their social media comments. -- Bistropha (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Bistropha If you want to improve it you have to do it yourself. Otherwise it has been the same two or three editors at it all the time. 121.7.142.227 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That was discussed extensively. If he is "notable" for anything it is for that kind of stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The article has gone completely lopsided in the last 24 hours. The only stable versions are Jytdog’s Jytdog. He is the only person who puts in effort to research and write a neutral article. Hopefully he doesn’t give up on this article. Historicalchild (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I'll try to contribute, time permitting. --Bistropha (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed the "lopsided" nature of the article by removing other POV and non-notable things from the article. Another reference is needed for his education since this is a source from the Government of Singapore, and thus not reliable, but also because there is no such thing as a PPE masters at Oxford, or any other university in the UK as far as I'm aware since this is a bachelors course. He also wouldn't have been accepted for a masters degree without first having a BA, so this is clearly wrong. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

According to this page [4], Oxford routinely grants the MA to PPE graduates after 21 terms; so it seems plausible that Cheng actually has it. -- Bistropha (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, Cheng cannot be said to have graduated from the Masters of Arts (PPE) from Oxford. the Masters of Arts (MA) is an honorary academic rank with no subject of study attached, granted by Oxbridge for BA(hons) students if one applies for it 7 years after matriculation. One can say he has received it, as it is an top-up masters degree, requiring no further studies unlike the MPhil or MSc. It is used by some Oxbridge grads to embellish their CVs. I feel like distinction should be made as 62% of UK employers were unaware that the MA did not represent any kind of postgraduate study.[[5] Take a look at David Cameron's page for instance.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.206.225.139 (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have rephrased the line to indicate that he was given an "Oxford M.A."; apparently this term is used to indicate the honorific character of the rank. -- Bistropha (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the context about Amos Yee as it explains the significance of the incident. Neither do we need to add Cheng's thoughts about the price fixing incident (which CCS actually replied to). As for the actual quote added by Jane Dawson, I disagree with that as well. We don't really need to put the entire quote there. It is sufficient to summarise it.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

See the next section below about Amos Yee. And I agree with summarizing the quotation rather than including it.

As for Cheng's thoughts, for a BLP article, it is highly desirable to put everything into proper context, and not be selective about reliable source coverage, using both negative and positive coverage weighted appropriately. The Wikimedia Foundation has a strong interest in neutrality for biographies on living people, because any perception of bias exposes the WMF to charges of libel. The bit about Cheng's thoughts was cited to a reliable source that gave ample coverage of this (including the headline). It is also appropriate to note the reason why Cheng's appeal was rejected. I have added that back in. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

BukitBintang8888, I feel that putting in the controversial quote per MOSQUOTE is best because it can get misrepresented. Case in point, see comment by administrator in section below, who actually thought it means "killing a child who's pointing a gun at you". It is frustrating when words are twisted to fit a certain POV. Best to quote verbatim to avoid unnecessary argument. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Would it be too much to expect that people actually read what the sources say before writing comments? In point of fact, the exact words that got Cheng in trouble were: "If a child is holding a rifle and is about to shoot at you, do you have the right to kill him?" This is documented in the source cited in the article: [7] As you say, it is frustrating when words are twisted to fit a certain POV. I have been attempting to neutralize the article by putting facts into context when possible. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist, you cannot be more mistaken. Have you actually read the sources given? The entire controversy was from the Facebook comment he made on Nov 17, not the subsequent blog post you quoted that he used to clarify his position. That was quoted in media and in the official police reports. Let me give you a timeline with citations:

Nov 17: Cheng posted a comment online - "The terrorists are not common criminals, it's not about crime punishment and deterrence. They are a mortal enemy intent on killing and destroying. So you kill them before they kill you. And their children too in case they grow up to take revenge. It's as simple as that. Please don't complicate matters."[8] - These are the words that got him into trouble.

Nov 24: He made a blog post and tried to 'clarify' his previous comment, saying he was trying to hoping to "tease out a philosophical discussion about the killing of children (and women) terrorists"[9] followed by the line you quoted.

Nov 27: Media Literacy Council came out to address his speech, saying they don't view it as hate speech but ackowledged it was insensitive [10][11]

Nov 28: He took to Facebook and his blog again to state that the Media Literacy agrees with him it was not hate speech.[12] He stood by his views and joked that those who had pointed out his inappropriate comments as "lacking critical thinking"[13]

Dec 14: More than one police report was made for his "for controversial comments he made online about killing the children of terrorists".[14]

Dec 17: State media reports the second police report on Cheng, on claims of him inciting violence again. [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.206.225.137 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that timeline. I stand corrected!

However, my points below still stand that this wasn't technically illegal because his controversial words were directed at entities outside of Singapore, unlike Amos Yee's, and also that including anything about Amos Yee comes across as an underhanded WP:POINT about inequality of punishments, which is not only invalid but doesn't need to be made in a biography article. I'm sure we have a whole article on that subject somewhere but this isn't it.

I'm socked away with a flu at the moment so I don't expect to participate much here until that gets better. Hard to keep thoughts straight. It's like a hangover but without the fun part preceding it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A correction: Above, user 185.206.225.137 writes that the second complaint to police, reported by Today on Dec 17, 2015 was about a second incident ("inciting violence again"). The Today article does not state that, but only refers to the November 17, 2015 remark. -- Bistropha (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Bistropha The article remains lopsided. Most of the section on business is now about the price fixing incidemt. Most of the section on politics is about the terrorist-comments. Clearly does not adhere to WP:BLP Historicalchild (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes; on the other hand, I think it has improved. --Bistropha (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

redundant language?

In the discussion of Cheng's terrorism comments, the article says that he "was not arrested or charged with a crime". To me, it seems redundant to say that he was not arrested. If police are investigating complaints, and they decide not to charge the person under investigation with an offense, then it seems obvious that they will not arrest the person. Or am I not understanding the possibilities correctly? Are there circumstances in which the police would decide not to charge the person, and yet would possibly arrest him anyway? Because of these considerations, I would propose to strike the words "arrested or". I made this change but it was reverted; therefore, I am raising the point here for clarification. -- Bistropha (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

People are often arrested before they are charged with a crime or are arrested and then released and never charged with a crime. Yee for example was arrested before he was charged with a crime. For how arrests function in the Sinagpore criminal justice system see, oh gee this or maybe page 30 of the singapore police procedures and please stop wasting other people's time. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The situation in this article does not fit the scenario Jytdog describes, so his argument does not appear germane to this case. --Bistropha (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the words "stop wasting other people's time" do not appear to be in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. For example, the Civility guidance urges: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." I am an experienced and conscientious editor, and my questions are always sincere and have the purpose of improving the article. --Bistropha (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I personally think its redundant to mention he was not arrested. Its practically weasel wording for "he should have been arrested but wasn't". Just my 2 cents. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Because two police reports were filed, there is certain expectation from the public or at least those who filed the report that he would be arrested. Stating that he is not arrested makes it clear to a reader who would otherwise be wondering whether the case is still open or close. Just my $0.02 Jane Dawson (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jane Dawson:, actually considering the nature of the complaint, I would just expect them to be, in local vernacular, "invited for kopi with the police"; asked in for a "talk". There's been many such reports in the past where the persons of interest for such cases were not arrested - when they cooperate for their investigations. I.e. offhand the case of Pastor Rony Tan's videos which insulted other religions which triggered, according to some outlets, up to 85 police reports, but he was not arrested. In the case of Cheng, the writeup says 2 report was made, and the consequence was stated, which was the reprimand. Its not as the reader is left hanging with no stated consequence. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zhanzhao, did he got a formal warning from the police? As far as I am aware, he got censured by the chairman of MLC who defended him by arguing that what he wrote does not amount to hate speech. Two reports made were one of inciting violence and another of sedition by putting Singapore at risk of a terrorist attack. The police dropped the case after receiving advice from the AGC. If the reprimand or warning is not from the police, then the consequence from the police reports is not clear. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Googling the case gave me this. Apparently he got a letter from the police closing the case.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As people have pointed out here, the reports were to the police about a possible crime. From the perspective of the legal system there were no consequences. None. Police looked and then closed. The reprimand was informal, from the head of the MLC which is not a formal government agency but just an advisory council. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How about using the word "prosecute"? Sounds more concise to me. Jane Dawson (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The "situation" when Cheng first made the inflammatory remarks was the same as when Yee first made inflammatory remarks. People were upset.... police reports were filed, then ... Cheng was verbally chided, not arrested nor charged: Yee was arrested then charged then tried then convicted then jailed.

btw wasting people's time with WP:Civil POV pushing is grounds for getting topic banned.Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

However it is not explicitly supported by the sources, and on that basis, not for the reasons actually provided here, which were all invalid on their face (especially the ludicrous OP) as well as in any WP discussion, i removed it. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

and i added back content along these lines, in the context of what the US judge said, where it is perfectly supported. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yee

User:Anachronist I think you were a bit hasty in this diff. The Independent ref says:

Judge Cole commented on Yee’s convictions in Singapore and said: “Though Yee’s prosecutions may have been legal under Singapore law, they clearly served a ‘nefarious purpose.”

He also noted: “… other people who made disparaging comments about religions, but who were not similarly critical of the Singapore regime avoided prosecution. These included Calvin Cheng and Jason Neo… Both made comments critical of Islam, equating Muslims to terrorists. Neither was charged.”

which is followed by a longer quote about PAP and how it ... manages freedom of speech and sedition issues. The content preceding that also contains references to Cheng with respect to Yee's response to him. There is a source or two that doesn't mention Cheng but are needed to tell this piece of the story as concisely as possible, yet completely. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Jytdog, I was about to start a section here but you did it first.

I removed that content for three reasons: one of the references made no mention of Cheng at all, the other reference gave only a trivial mention to Cheng, and the paragraph seemed unduly weighted toward another biography.

After you reverted me, I tried to tighten up the prose a bit while retaining all the content you restored.

Reading over that paragraph, half of it is all about Amos Yee. That half is only tangentially about Cheng. Because this is a bio of Cheng, that paragraph strikes me as highly WP:UNDUE weight about another subject that is already covered quite thoroughly in the Amos Yee article.

The other thing that bothers me about this paragraph is the WP:POINTY nature of it. Reading it, it smells to me like Amos Yee is mentioned here just to make an underhanded point about the uneven application of laws in Singapore. That's certainly a valid point to be made, but not in the context of this biography. If there were sources saying that Chen influenced law enforcement to treat him and Yee differently, maybe it would be appropriate to include, but such sources don't exist, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being clear about all your objections. One of the major points of contention in this article ever since Cheng got involved with politics, has been how to deal with his online behavior here in this article. It is very clear that his alignment with PAP is what makes it possible for him to do things like cyberbully a professor, and talk about killing the babies of terrorists and get nothing more than a verbal chiding, while others are shut down, investigated and even jailed and found guilty of crimes.

To the extent this is going to be a WP article and not just promotion for him (and it has been under severe promotional pressure from a series of socks and IP editors for ten years now) we need to deal with that stuff.

It comes to its apogee in the Yee case where a US judge commented on the situation in Singapore with Cheng in particular, including Yee's interaction with Cheng. As has been discussed elsewhere, sourcing this stuff is rough due to the nature of the media in Singapore, and due to Cheng being a medium sized fish in that small pond so not getting much coverage in sources outside Singapore.

So that is why it is here. I would be fine if you could find a way to condense it further. I made it as concise as I could. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I had tried to condense it further, but you reverted me. I thought it was enough just to leave one sentence about Yee's response to Cheng, and not go into details about his asylum case. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There's another thing to consider. Looking at the sources in the article, it appears that Cheng's insensitive comments were about ISIS (specifically killing a child who's pointing a gun at you) and didn't mention Islam. Because he didn't insult a religion, the comments weren't technically illegal. On the other hand, Amos Yee's comments (see Amos Yee#Second offence for hurting religious feelings, arrest and conviction) deliberately named and insulted a religion, which I understand is illegal in Singapore. The US judge was correct in granting Yee asylum because Singapore's restrictions on freedom of expression would require that Yee suffer for his speech. However, the judge's comparison between Yee and Chen seems misinformed, as this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Therefore, I still maintain that mentioning it is irrelevant to this biography. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If I may weigh in, Cheng's actual Facebook remarks are not about "killing a child pointing a gun at you", but the wiping out of children of terrorists in general.[16]

(interjection) Wrong. We use what the sources say, not random screen shots from some file upload area. The words that got Cheng in trouble were: "If a child is holding a rifle and is about to shoot at you, do you have the right to kill him?" This is documented in the source cited in the article: [17] ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist, I am very uncomfortable with the line you are taking here to the point where I have not responded. Please be aware that the quote you provided is not in the original post but in his post responding to criticism of his initial post. I have added a ref that includes his original post to help people avoid making this error in the future. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist, the source you quoted (Today) stated that a "four-lined comment online, which seemingly advocated killing the children of terrorists in case they grow up to take revenge" posted on Nov 17 was the one that got him in trouble. The screenshot I cited was to facilitate my argument as I thought most editors here would know the original FB comment by now. His original facebook comment (responding to a Facebook post made by Devadas Krishnadas) has been taken down, but he has almost reposted his comments in its entirety on his blog,[18] portions of the 4 line comment has been reported by Straits Time[19], The New Paper[20] Today,[21] Channel NewsAsia,[22] Channel 8,[23], and major online news sites such as The Online Citizen [24] and Yahoo. [25]It should be noted he did not apologise for his comments nor recant his statement,[26] but apologised to the MLC for creating controversy online as a member of the board which was supposed to promote 'cyber wellness'.

*The saga with embeds to actual social media posts[27]

I don't think Wikipedians should be spending time explaining a FB saga, and spending so much effort on this guy's page. But I voiced out because I'm concerned with the amount of white-washing here. I will also urge Singapore editors to adhere to BLP guidelines and stick to the bare facts, which speak for themselves, and avoiding biased wording in the actual article that may cause editors and admins such as Anachronist to distrust your arguments. 185.206.225.133 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

White-washing? There are a lot of reliable sources covering Cheng that don't dwell on this Facbook incident and price-fixing incident, yet this article devotes a disproportionate amount of weight to them, particularly in the context of Amos Yee, which is what we're talking about here. Certainly these incidents should be mentioned, but Amos Yee and a US judge's misinformed views about Singaporean law belong in some other article.

And Jytdog, your concerns are valid. In the section above I state that I stand corrected regarding which quotation is under discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It is illegal and a jailable offence in Singapore to incite violence and advocate the killing of the innocent.[28] It is a different charge from Amos Yee, but a more serious one considering Cheng is an adult and a somewhat more respectable public figure. Calvin Cheng has also made inflammatory claims on racial relations previously. He has publicly berated minority Malays for speaking up on systematic racism in the country, blaming the Malay Muslims' complaints for the radicalisation of Muslim youth.[29] The Singaporean media downplays this as he is linked to the establishment, and no media will dare to write that the public prosecution or judiciary give preferential treatment, as they can easily be charged for scandalizing the judiciary. I do not agree the judge is misinformed, both Cheng and Yee engage social media to propagate their non-pc remarks and consider themselves enlightened mavericks (and make interesting points once in a while). The difference is no one takes Yee seriously, but Cheng is often quoted in mainstream media has much more real influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.206.225.133 (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I was following the saga and Cheng did not incite violence. He did not tell people to go kill ISIS children but said they should be killed. And almost all the blogs only showed a screenshot of what he said in the first comment of that thread of discussion selectively but not what he said after he clarified. People are allowed to clarify in a discussion. More importantly, Cheng did not incite anybody in Singapore to kill other people in Singapore. Like the example you gave. If he said that the children of people detained for terrorist charges in Singapore should be killed, I am sure he would have been arrested at least. Also Cheng publicly berated ONE Malay provocateur Alfian Sa’at who himself makes controversial comments. Like saying Malays should not grieve for Lee Kuan Yew because they are only his step children and that Lee Kuan Yew was a racist towards Malays. Alfian regularly claims racism in Singapore and regularly writes inflammatory things about Malays being ill treated in Singapore. Singapore may rank lowly in press freedom and human rights, but her judicial and legal system regularly ranks highly. The World Justice Project ranks Singapore 9th in world and only Asian country in top 10. https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2016. 113.53.228.63 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Since the Yee article contains a description of the US judge's statement at Yee's asylum hearing, I think it would be best to simply point readers to that, in the "See also" section. For example:
• * Amos Yee#Life in US: In March 2017, a U.S. immigration judge compared Cheng with blogger and former actor Amos Lee, prosecuted in Singapore for offensive statements.

--Bistropha (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't do that. content needs to be sourced in the article where the content is. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, exactly: I'm proposing that the content about Yee and his asylum case doesn't need to be part of the Cheng article. It's not part of his biography: it's just a matter where someone else talked about him. So I would use the "See also" line to give readers a link to where Cheng is mentioned on the Yee page. --Bistropha (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

for the last time no, Content has to be sourced where it appears. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The proposal is functionally equivalent to articles that provide a brief summary paragraph with a {{main}} link to the primary article above it. We can provide a shorter summary about Yee with a link to the main article. Whether that's appropriate in "See also" I don't know, but I still maintain that this article says way more about Yee than a biography of Cheng needs to say. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Anachronist. The Yee material here is excessive. In addition, Jytdog's concern about sourcing does not apply, since I am proposing that we take out the Yee material from the Cheng article completely, and instead use a "See also" line. -- Bistropha (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why you are so allergic to the content about yee, anachronist. we have two contemporaries from singapore who each enjoy writing outrageous things on the internet who just happen to have different political views. but they are not so different in terms of what they do online. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That confirms my view. The Yee material tells us something about Human rights in Singapore and about Yee, but really nothing about Cheng and his life, so it belongs in those two articles, and not in the Cheng article. Also, I object to the personal comment about Anachronist, and I encourage all editors to please be careful to avoid personal remarks (Wikipedia:Civility). --Bistropha (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that what Yee did is clearly criminal in Singapore. There is a very well-known law in Singapore against attacking any religion. Yee is not the first to fall foul of this. But he persistently attacks Islam, Muslims, Christians etc. He has ever only been charged for this crime. Cheng never mentioned any religion in any of his posts. There are plenty of anti Government bloggers in Singapore including many Jytdog and others have used in their sources and they have never been charged nor arrested either. If there is any question about human rights its only whether people should be allowed to criticize and insult religion freely. 43.252.215.166 (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes their outrageous internet behavior is treated differently. No one has disputed that. In any case the content is sourced and relevant here; Yee and Cheng are connected for all time now. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

They are treated differently because a law dating to Singapore’s independence after a series of racial riots that left many dead clearly prohibits some forms of speech. It’s not because of any bias or favouritism 43.252.213.38 (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly so. And here we come full circle, to my original assertion that the way this is presented seems to be for the purpose of making an underhanded point about a different subject that isn't relevant to Cheng's biography, but belongs properly in another article. So a US judge mentions Cheng and Yee in the same breath (almost) and they are "connected for all time." Did this statement by the judge receive any significant coverage in multiple sources that warrants including it in this biography? Or do all we have is a source of questionable reliability trying to make an editorial point? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

IP, the difference in how the outrageous speech acts of Cheng and Yee were treated was central to point 6 in the judge's decision -- not some aside. (decision is here, linked from this OnlineCitizen piece which also has the entire ruling of the appeals judge, who said there was no legal error in the judge's decision.) Court decisions are part of the public record; the decision is never going away. Hence, "for all time". A little dramatic for me to say it that way, but it is not going away. Jytdog (talk)

fwiw, the government of singapore also noted the argument the judge made connecting the two, and argued against it (see here) as the onlinecitizen noted. The Economist also refered to this point in their reporting, noting "Immigration judges often grant asylum with a simple, spoken ruling. This one explained himself over 13 pages. He gave eight reasons why the charges of wounding religious sentiment and obscenity were simply a pretext to suppress Mr Lee’s political views, including the disproportionate prison sentence handed to a young first-time offender, the fact that his first video—and the public response—focused far more on his criticism of Lee Kuan Yew than his “tangential” remarks about Christianity, and Singapore’s failure to prosecute other people who had insulted Islam." Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct, the link is because of the different ways both were treated, and also because of Yee's response to Cheng.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Price Fixing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

“adversely affected the market by increasing commissions due to the modelling agencies at the expense of consumers”

This statement is a misreading of CCS’s reply. It’s the rise in prices that adversely affect the market. The commissions are taken from the models not the consumers. What CCS is trying to say that the ‘nobility’ of the agencies may have increased what the models take, but it affected consumers and they themselves benefited from more commissions even if % stays the same 185.92.26.28 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

fixed Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit by Jytdog in March was far more neutral regarding this incident:

“In 2005, Cheng helped found an association of modeling agencies in Singapore called the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals Singapore (AMIP) to improve standards and professionalism in Singapore's fashion industry and to increase pay for models and their agencies.[8][9] At the time, models in Singapore were paid about $250 for a fashion show while the same work paid $850 in Hong Kong or China.[9] The association succeeded in increasing wages for shows and fashion shoots but in 2011 the members of the association were fined for price fixing.[9]“

The two deleted references are also important :

https://web.archive.org/web/20080308092921/http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,89812,00.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20160416012637/http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130506-420591.html

Historicalchild (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with your POV pushing unless you want the response by CCS to be added back in:

Mr Cheng stated that the intent of the modelling agencies was to raise the rates paid to models. However, the price-fixing agreement increased the prices that customers paid, which also increased the amount of commission due to the modelling agencies. The agencies' actions were found by the Competition Appeal Board to have an appreciable adverse effect on the market.

Price fixing is one of the most serious forms of infringement of competition law, and companies should take proactive steps to ensure that their management and staff understand and comply with the law.

Jane Dawson (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

References

What CCS said in the reply was what they said in the decision. They merely repeated it. It’s redundant. And your threatening rude tone is not appreciated. Historicalchild (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope. That's what CCS said in 2013 after his agency was fined for price-fixing in 2011, in response to Cheng who managed to get Straits Times to publish an article claiming that his action was "noble". Jane Dawson (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope. What CCS said in 2013 was to reiterate what they said in the decision. Moreover that edit was not mine but Jytdog’s. Historicalchild (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you say CCS reiterate the above, that means it carry due weight for the article and will be added in if you insist on your POV push. Jane Dawson (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it in. I didn’t remove your POV edit. No Singaporean editor did. Jytdog removed it. This alleged POV push was also JYTdog’s edit. Not mine. Historicalchild (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jane Dawson should really learn from Jytdog. Every editor should. Even if you disagree with him he has done in depth research before he posts. He even managed to dig up Singapore arrest procedures. Unlike Jane Dawson who is just blatantly anti establishment. Her user page says as much and COI is clear. Friends have a COI. But so do enemies. It’s clearly set out in who has COI. Historicalchild (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI edit requests

Hi! I've been hired by Calvin Cheng to request some updates to this article:

• Add to "Business career" section, after second paragraph: The World Economic Forum named Cheng a Young Global Leader in 2009.
• Add to the end of the price fixing paragraph in "Business career" section: Cheng stated in 2013 that he stood by his actions at AMIP. He alleged that the goal of raising prices was achieving higher wages for models.
• Add to end of "Business career" section: In April 2018, Cheng launched AlphaBit CryptoCurrency Exchange (ABCC), a cryptocurrency exchange in Singapore. Cheng is CEO of the organization.

References

Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly. I greatly appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

First thing is OK.

Second this is PR and not what WP is for. Please be careful of making edit requests that are just PR.

The sources for the exchange are both churnalism. Is there independent reporting on this? Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That second bullet has been the subject of some churn in this article, if I recall correctly. I disagree that it's just PR. It's just a quotation from Cheng's point of view, which is fair game to present in a biography about him, as long as it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE; it should be nothing more than a brief sentence in a larger context that should already have secondary sources.

I agree with the sources on the third bullet. While the fact of the organization's existence and Cheng's position in it should be presented in the article, I'd like to see better sources than press releases disguised as journalistic articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The second thing is pure spin. He appealed and it was denied, and we do say this. With regard to the "just for the models thing"-- Cheng has been pushing and PUSHING and PUSHING to get that spin into WP for years now. I am sure that by now journalists just politely say no. Unfortunately WP is open to we have an endless string of IPs and paid editors asking the same thing over and over on behalf of Cheng. It is entirely UNDUE and purely promotional. We too politely say "no". Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I advise MaryGaulke to look for any other record, like from the original appeal or its denial, that presents this viewpoint that he did it "for the models". While I can attest that Straits Times is an excellent newspaper for most purposes, it isn't regarded as a reliable source for topics related to Singapore politics. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• btw for full disclosure here... Cheng reached out to me via email to discuss this page. In the course of that discussion, I offered the names of a few ethical paid editors, Mary among them. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  He had reached out to me also in the past, and I had suggested Mary as well (probably due to an email exchange between you and me). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Anachronist: Hi both! Thanks for weighing in here.

• For the second bullet, what about including only the first sentence: Cheng stated in 2013 that he stood by his actions at AMIP.
• There are many other sources for ABCC, but most are niche crypto-focused publications, e.g. , or tangential mentions, e.g. .

As I'm sure you both know, I'm not interested in trying to push this through over your judgment, so if the first bullet (Young Global Leader) is all that can be done for now I'll let it rest and advise Mr. Cheng to do the same. Thank you both for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Sources for AMIP goal benefitting models

@MaryGaulke: I have no problem with bullet 3 as long as good sources can be found. I can agree that it's a notable enough fact to be included. It's really just a statement that needs verifying. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. No harm in including it.

As you can surmise from this discussion (and also prior on this talk page), Jytdog and I disagree about bullet 2. I think it should be included, Jytdog doesn't, but I do agree that if we include it, it needs a better source. So I'll point out two more:

• Dylan Boey (April 1, 2005). "Models Inc - A body of models". The Straits Times, Life section. -- unfortunately this is behind a paywall, but I have a copy. Another Straits Times article, yes, but look at the date. This was in 2005, six years before the investigation in 2011, not an after-the-fact piece. It may be PR, but it isn't spin merely in response to the price fixing fallout. Here are relevant quotes from the article:

  To fight for better terms for models here, the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (AMIP) has been formed. ... The association aims to improve the welfare of models as well as improve the professional and ethical conduct of agencies. Association president Calvin Cheng says ... 'The story was one very good justification for an organisation to improve things in the industry' ... He points out how top Singaporean models like Charmaine Harn are now based overseas because of better prospects. 'They don't even bother to come back for castings,' says Cheng, who is CEO of Looque International, which used to own the Elite Singapore model agency.

  POOR pay is the biggest issue the association is hoping to put right. 'Modelling has ceased to be a profession in Singapore because full-time models cannot survive. The rates are too low,' says Cheng.

• There's also the text of the 2011 decision itself. I find things in there that suggest the motive of "better pay for models" wasn't just PR spin, it was the established factual purpose of the price fixing. Quotes:
  • Paragraph 54: "According to AMIP President Calvin Cheng, Singapore Fashion Week occurs around the same time as the Hong Kong Fashion Week every year, and since modelling persons would choose to go to the country where the organizers pay better rates"
  • Paragraph 114: "Chuan Do said that the AMIP rates caused an increase in the rates payable to models in Singapore, and has become the common rate applicable today."
  • Paragraph 172: "Calvin Cheng said that AMIP members were not price fixing but had agreed to ask clients to pay AMIP rates. AMIP members succeeded in getting clients to pay more for specified modelling services. ... 'We are telling clients please increase our rates, we are not telling clients we will be increasing our rates.'"
  • Paragraph 225: "In their joint written representations, Bees Work, Diva, Electra, Impact, Linsan, Looque and Quest, argued that the infringing agreement conferred net economic benefits ("NEB") .... They submitted that the object of the agreement between the AMIP members was to 'uplift and upgrade the image and professionalism of the modelling industry' by forming a collective voice to resolve concerns and problems related to the industry, for instance, to collectively counter clients and go after clients who were bad paymasters. It was submitted that the benchmarking of the modelling rates was only part of the AMIP's efforts to improve modelling standards in Singapore and that by raising the modelling rates and price differentials, higher quality and professional models would be attracted to Singapore."
  • Paragraph 260: "Calvin Cheng also expressed concern that a price war may ensue if CCS issues an unfavourable decision towards AMIP or it becomes public that AMIP guidelines were removed. 'Therefore, I urge you to not only exonerate us from anticompetitive practices, but also to endorse what we have done. Do not make us take down our guidelines. We worked very hard to try to make Singapore's modelling industry competitive, to convince clients to pay more, so better talent can come to Singapore.'"

Those excerpts, and many others in that document, are convincing enough evidence to me that the quotation Mary cited from The Straits Times with Cheng saying the goal was to raise wages for models, is more than just PR spin. Improving wages was a deliberate goal of the price fixing scheme to from the beginning. Therefore, I still believe it is relevant to include in the article, perhaps not that specific quote originally proposed, but perhaps something else quoted from the CCS decision to put it in better context. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Anachronist. Maybe something like: According to AMIP, the goal of raising prices was achieving higher wages for models. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Sorry, I have to disagree. Even if price fixing led to better pay for models, there is no way to prove that that is the goal. An opinion is not a fact. If Cheng's claim is to be included, then CCS's counter argument below should also be included.

Mr Cheng stated that the intent of the modelling agencies was to raise the rates paid to models. However, the price-fixing agreement increased the prices that customers paid, which also increased the amount of commission due to the modelling agencies. The agencies' actions were found by the Competition Appeal Board to have an appreciable adverse effect on the market.

Price fixing is one of the most serious forms of infringement of competition law, and companies should take proactive steps to ensure that their management and staff understand and comply with the law.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Dawson (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposed text

Including that long quotation would be way over into WP:UNDUE weight territory for one contextual sentence. This isn't about "proof". We have sources quoting Cheng from years before, during, and after the CCS decision that improving wages was the goal. Simply put, Cheng claimed that AMIP's goal was to raise wages, but this "goal" was later found to be price fixing. We have sources for both clauses. Nothing more needs to be said. I suggest two sentences, along the lines of "Cheng claimed that AMIP's objective was to raise wages for models. CCS found that AMIP's practices constituted price fixing, having 'an appreciable adverse effect on the market.'" Anything else is unnecessary detail. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The thing that AMIP of course doesn't talk about, is that when models get paid more, the management (members of AMIP) gets paid more, as noted by Jane Dawson above. I will add to that paragraphs 272-276 on pages 110-112 of the decision which makes it clear that the model fee was paid to the agency by the client, not to the model. "the Parties were not mere intermediaries but are, in fact, the responsible entity for modelling services rendered to clients. CCS notes that the contractual relationship is between the client and modelling agency, and that the client would look to and hold the modelling agency responsible for breach of contract." ..."The modelling agencies sources and builds its own portfolio of models and talents. It offers its portfolio of models and talents as modelling services in order to secure bookings and jobs."

As importantly, the goal of developing the modelling industry in Singapore of course means more business for the management companies. The members of AMIP said this:

We have concluded that:

(1) Prices here are too low to attract top international runway talent. We are losing a lot of talent to Hong Kong and Shanghai whose runway rates can be 2 to 5 times Singapore's.

(2) Prices are too low to attract top regional talent. Models from China, Thailand, Japan, Korea amongst others command more in their home countries, often Third World countries, than in Singapore.

As a result, we are unable to provide high-quality models to the runway shows here in Singapore, which in turn lower the standard of the fashion shows here.

In addition, we are unable to cultivate a good cohort of local runway models as they are not able to obtain a respectable and regular income.

All these factors will hamper Singapore's efforts to be a fashion capital, and prevent Singapore modelling agencies from competing regionally and internationally. (emphasis added) (source = page 140 of the decision, which is a memo from AMIP])

This is why the emphasizing "we did it for the models" is so unacceptable. of course it all starts with model fees -- the model fees are the same as the price of any product for the business owners (with the added tweak that the price is for talent, so high prices mean better talent which means more money for management). Of course they said "it is about the models" from the beginning. Duh. This is business 101.

AMIP members directly benefited from the higher wages and developing the industry, and trying to spin this as pure altruism is utter bullshit. So no. Hell no.

On top of that, Cheng/his agents/whatever have abused Wikipedia's openness and wasted volunteer time for over ten years now. ENOUGH already. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, obviously. That's the whole crux of the dispute between AMIP and CCS. It wouldn't be right to exclude that from this article. We could say something like "CCS concluded that, contrary to AMIP's assertion that their goal was to increase wages for models, AMIP's practice of price-fixing resulted in 'an appreciable and adverse effect on the market.'" That statement puts the whole thing into proper context, it's concise, and the fact that we have multiple sources supporting each clause makes the point notable enough to include. Any problem with that? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I cannot say "no" more clearly. Cheng is a businessman and the business fundamentals benefitting management are simple, to anyone who takes the time to think about this business matter. And the content you are suggesting is bizarre. No one disputed that the models benefitted. No one. The competition committee didn't dispute it -- they ignored it because it is irrelevant. The exact spin here is Cheng's push to say "hey, look over there!" when the actual problem is elsewhere. There is no no way in hell that we will allow this kind of spin in WP. The community will never accept that. You will need to take this to an RfC and hey - it is your reputation to trash if you want to go there. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I might just do that. I never started an RFC before. I'll look into it when I have time.

I honestly don't understand the objection to providing the underlying context of a dispute between AMIP and CCS using a single well-sourced sentence. Yes, no one disputes that the models benefitted, but that isn't the point. The point is that AMIP claimed repeatedly that was their purpose before, during, and after CCS got involved, and CCS concluded "no, that wasn't your real purpose". That's a far cry from "spin". What is the problem with a single sentence explaining that? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the CCS did not say "that was not your real purpose". The CCS looked at the behavior and found that it violated the law and so the CCS forced the companies to pay a penalty based on their profits. The claimed motivation was irrelevant.

Yes I know you don't understand the problem. There is nothing I can do about that other than write what I have already written. The proposal is pure misdirection and what we call UNDUE. I will not respond further. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The motivation would be irrelevant if there was just isolated coverage of it, but that isn't the case here. It would be WP:UNDUE if we included more than one line about it. That you consider it spin or misdirection is irrelevant; what matters according to Wikipedia's content guidelines is coverage, and we have that, before, during by the CCS itself, and afterward. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine, if you insist, we can have it like this: "Despite profiteering from higher agency commissions, Calvin Cheng insisted that the goal of AMIP's price fixing action was to raise wages for the models. The CCS rebuked Cheng, stating that AMIP's practices resulted in customers paying more, adversely impacting the market considerably." Jane Dawson (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If he truly believes in raising model wages, he would have lower his agency commission rate instead of raising price through price-fixing.Jane Dawson (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty good. I'd replace some of the loaded words, and fix the awkward-sounding the double adverb at the end. How about: "Despite profiting from higher agency commissions, Calvin Cheng insisted that AMIP's goal was to raise wages for models. The CCS rejected that assertion, stating that AMIP's price-fixing actions resulted in customers paying more, having a considerable adverse impact on the market." We have at least two sources for each sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Jane please provide a quote from CCS where they "rebuked Cheng". Anachronist, please provide a quote where the CCS "rejected that assertion". And for both of you we don't need to say the whole name. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Profiteering means profitting by unfair means, especially illegally. It concisely describes the situation here. No need to water-down. Rebuked means expressing sharp disapproval. The quoted statement from CCS is a rebuke in response to Cheng's argument. I couldn't be more succinct here.Jane Dawson (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a sharp disapproval in the piece Jane quoted (CCS response to Cheng's statement in Straits Times). Rather it acknowledges the goal and basically says executing on that goal constituted price fixing. "Profiteering" is disparaging and used in the context of "exhorbitant" profits according to my dictionary, which isn't established for this case, and not used in any source I can find ("profiting" is), treading into original research. "Profiting" is concise and precise.

As for "rejected", you're right Jytdog, that isn't quite accurate. I see in the 2011 CCS decision instances of CCS rejecting other assertions (e.g. paragraph 210) but not the assertion that AMIP's goal was to increase wages. The CCS decision document recognizes that goal in paragraph 204 and 213f... the only "rejecting" of that is CCS recognizing that the goal to "command higher model rates" involved price fixing.

OK, how about this: "Despite profiting from higher agency commissions, Cheng insisted that AMIP's goal was to raise wages for models. The CCS judged that AMIP engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing to achieve that goal, resulting in customers paying more, and having a considerable adverse impact on the market." ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own definition, price-fixing is a form of profiteering. AMIP has been found guilty of price-fixing by CCS. I am not aware that stating a fact can be disparaging. The second paragraph of the text which I quote here again "Price fixing is one of the most serious forms of infringement of competition law, and companies should take proactive steps to ensure that their management and staff understand and comply with the law." shows strong disapproval. It shows the CCS means serious business and will use the full force of the law to prevent any price-fixing practices. This statement was made after Cheng got ST to publish his "noble" story. Jane Dawson (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

CCS ignored the protestation of motivation, as should we. The current text is fine. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't use Wikipedia as a source, and in any case the price fixing article makes no mention of profiteering. I'll work the revision into the article if I have time today. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If you add it, I will revert it. It is PROMO and UNDUE and is just a continuation of Cheng's ten year effort to abuse our openness for promotion. The current content is fine as it is. Like many people who work the helpline, you have gone from a neutral helper to an advocate for the article subject. It happens. But if you want to do this, you will need to do an RfC. If you are unsure how, I can help. Just post the content that you want to appear with its sourcing, instead of what is there (or if you want to add something, just state precisely where the sourced content would go). I can then format the RfC neutrally. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, for the misunderstanding, I thought by "current text is fine" you meant my current proposal. Between the three of us, neither Jane nor I seem to have a problem with including the goal if presented in an appropriate context, we're just quibbling over copyedits at this point.

I request that you stop imagining I have motivations that don't exist. I'm not advocating for the subject, I am disagreeing with your interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that this is promotional and undue. That's all. Period. AMIP's purported "goal" happens to be a notable fact in spite of you and Jane AND me having a personal distaste for Cheng's motivation to include it. That "goal" is repeatedly recognized by the CCS and the other sources, and therefore is notable enough for inclusion. Given that, a single mention is far from undue weight. I haven't yet seen a compelling policy-grounded argument against that position, which would basically be arguing against WP:GNG.

The rest of my week is pretty busy. I'll look into setting up an RFC when I have the time. You can start one if you want, but there is no urgency. As for the content to appear, I imagine that would be some combination of Jane's and my recent proposals. I'm actually OK if Jane's version went into the article, although the community would likely consider "profiteering" and "rebuked" as violating WP:BLP and possibly WP:OR. The sourcing is scattered all over this conversation started by Mary, so it will be a bit of work to put together a well-formed proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not describing motivations but rather behavior. Advocacy is advocacy. I do not favor either Jane's proposal (which goes too far into SYN) nor yours (which is advocacy for Cheng, UNDUE and PROMO). There is no encyclopedic value to giving his spin on these events. Describing what happened is sufficient for an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, describing what happened is sufficient. But what happened also includes how AMIP/Cheng publicly presented their motivation over the years. Was it spin? Maybe, but so what? It's a fact that happened, and as long as we attribute it properly and don't state AMIP's goal as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, we've done our job. From my perspective, this as about notability and encyclopedic value. The relevant questions are: Is AMIP's claim of their goal notable enough to mention? Would mentioning it give it undue weight? Would mentioning it be equivalent to promoting a point of view? Those are all valid questions, and we disagree not only about the answers, but also which of our rules and best practices have precedence when they conflict (WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:UNDUE). ~Anachronist (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict in policies here. It can be added because there is an RS for it; the question is should we. This is where editorial judgement comes in. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have already given my take on the use of the two words. Dictionaries and people may have a wide range of interpretations on the meaning of the same two words. I shall rest my case here. Jane Dawson (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jane Dawson, Jytdog, and Anachronist: Hi all, been a few weeks. Checking in if I can do anything here to add clarity to this conversation or help us attain a resolution. Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mary. One of the three suggestions was implemented. The sourcing is not good enough for his crypto venture now; we can add that if/when there are independent, good sources for it. (btw, if you are not aware there are now "general sanctions" on cryptocurrency stuff. See WP:GS/Crypto) On the "i did it for the models" thing, there is no consensus for that here. That is clear. If somebody wants to throw an RfC for that, they can. My sense is that an RfC would not get consensus for that change either, but somebody can try. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think an RFC is worth having because there are fairly good arguments for including AMIP's long-term position that they benefited models, regardless of whether it was spin. However, I'm not inclined to dive into it now. Maybe later. No objection to anyone else making an RFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Controversial"?

The article uses the term "controversy"/"controversial" three times to refer to Mr. Cheng and his opinions, but I think this word is somewhat problematic. It is vague because it is based on reaction to his statements rather than describing the statements themselves. It has a stigmatizing effect because it places public debate under the label of "controversy", implicitly a destabilizing phenomenon.

I believe it is not really proper to label his opinions in this vague way, nor in this negative way, under the principle of NPOV; at least such a term should be attributed to someone and not presented as the judgment of Wikipedia.

Would it be helpful to find some other way to describe Mr. Cheng's statements on social and public policy? Are they outspoken? Are they iconoclastic? Are they partisan? If it is difficult to find a word that describes the statements themselves, perhaps it is not necessary to insert any adjective: perhaps it is enough (in the introduction) to say that Cheng is known for his comments on social and political issues in Singapore. But I expect that editors will be able to improve this wording. Bistropha (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that controversial is actually a neutral label (neither positive nor negative) because it avoids passing judgements on the opinions ("outspoken", "iconoclastic", "strong", "foolish"). For this reason, controversial is widely used throughout Wikipedia, instead of describing the actual content of the opinions. Not all opinions create controversy, so it wouldn't be fair to group them all in one group. For example, Galileo's statements were controversial (even though scientifically accurate). So were comments by Natalie Maines of Dixie Chicks and they have been described as such.BukitBintang8888 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

One difference about the Galileo article is that the term "controversy" is used there fairly consistently to refer to specific topics and cases of public dispute. In the Cheng article, it's used (two out of three times) without referring to a specific matter. I agree with you that it is used in a neutral way in the Galileo article. Bistropha (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The term "controversial" wasn't used by Wikipedia editors regarding Mr. Cheng's opinions and statements out of the blue, but is often used by the media when reporting on said controversies. On a very short google search I found quite a few examples. It's a thoroughly sourced term to use and also not as negative as your might think. Additionally, I'm struggling to think of milder terms in which to describe the proposal to kill the children of terrorists so as to avoid their revenge later in life. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Personally, I wish there were some word other than controversial. It normally implies controversial for good reason, but it haas such a range of possible meanings that it can be unclear. When possible, I would prefer not to use any qualifying adjectives such as this, or to use a phrase like "attracted press comments" . If someone does something terrible, judt say what it is, and let the reader conclude for themselves that it is terrible. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to use controversial, it should be because one (or more) reliable sources labeled them as "controversial", not because Wikipedia editors have assessed differing opinions on both sides, and found them controversial; that would be WP:OR. If a majority of reliable sources have called them "controversial", then saying so in the article in Wikipedia's voice is (*cough*) uncontroversial; if a minority have used the term, they can be quoted and sourced in-line, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If a tiny minority have said it, or only Wikipedia editors have, then the word shouldn't be used at all. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

update to infobox

Small COI edit request: Could | website = calvincheng.sg be added to the infobox? Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, I can't see why not. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)