Jump to content

Talk:Edison Chen photo scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge?

[edit]

No matter how many citations we can probably get for this article, it is a better fit for the main Edison Chen article. Also, WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Detailed coverage of this scandal would be intruding his privacy, but we can simply summarize it in the main Edison Chen article to indicate that this scandal indeed took place. Pandacomics (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But includes alot of artists also, isn't better to put a summary on thier pages, then link them here all in one place? Dengero (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree to this because I'm so sick and tired of modding Bobo, Cecilia, Gillian and Edison's pages that I gave up editing/reverting altogether. If we can just summarise the event in thier pages, link the main article here, then I could monitor those pages normally like before and revert anything that goes outside the summarization. Then our front could be closed to just here and let those million anon IP's vandlise all they want here. Dengero (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a story about Edison and the female artists anymore, it is also about how the Hong Kong Police and the Hong Kong Judiciary System handles pornography on the internet. Ngchikit 10:20, 4 February 2008

Agreed, and there are actually more artists involved, just that the police in Hong Kong is still withholding information. Rayson 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. No not merge. This is a social issue. The police handling of the case adds to a long history of double standards where the police and the legal system does everything to protect local entertainment business at the expense of oversight in other areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICEBreaker (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case, there should be information on how this impacts the judiciary system in Hong Kong. Like a "Cultural Impact" section or something. Pandacomics (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an event of "galactic proportion" in HK (or even in Asia) Movie/Entertainment industry. TheAsianGURU (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Why korean and Japanese references when this is a Hong Kong news? Dengero (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will find some more Chinese links, but this news is hot in Japan and Korea as well. Rayson 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The news is very hot now in South Korea, but the Japanese and Korean sources are too much put on the article.--Appletrees (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth putting some mention + references of international (meaning outside of HK I guess) impact because as it stands - it looks like right now this is a HK-only storm-in-a-teacup. 167.247.219.10 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Title

[edit]

The current title is Edison Chen's scandal of sex photos (2008). This is grammatically incorrect and should be retitled as Edison Chen's Sex Photos Scandal (2008).

I've renamed it "Edison Chen photo scandal". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Chen caused a photo scandal a couple of years ago, so this title is not correct per se. The title should be any of these titles such as "Edison Chen's sex photo scandal", "The sex photo sandal of Edison Chen", or "Edison Chen photo scandal (2008)". He once said his most favorite sport is "sex", so Edison Chen's sex scandal is not adequate as well. --08:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs)
Out of all that, I only agree on adding 2008 to the title. Dengero (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did not realise he actually had another photo scandal. Is there an article for that scandal? If not, then I think this current title is fine. But if other editors want it to be specified in the title that this article is about the 2008 scandal, we can move the title again, this time to "Edison Chen photo scandal (2008)". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it from several Korean web portals, but you deleted the whole external links except English and Chinese sources. I don't know there is an English source for that. That photo scandal is about his photo revealing the lower part of his body. He really is a trouble maker. He is not that famous in South Korea, but Cecilia Cheung is. Supposed that this incident has nothing to do with her, Koreans might not care that much...Anyway, I agree to rename the article with 2008.--Appletrees (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

이어 “진관희는 2006년 잡지 인터뷰에서 가장 좋아하는 스포츠를 ‘섹스’라고 답했다. 2005년 3월 인터넷 상에는 하반신 노출 사진이 유출됐다. 당시, 본인은 아니라고 발표했지만 사이버 섹스 애호자다”라고 맹공을 퍼부었다.

--Appletrees (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I deleted the entire External links section. It only had one English-language site (which I believe was already used as a reference), the rest were in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. I absolutely think non-English sources can and should be used for footnote references, but as External links, non-English sites are not very useful for readers of English WP and should be avoided per Wikipedia:External links. But if the Korean sources verify some of the information on the article that need citation, please add them in as footnotes. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. What I meant was, is there a Wikipedia article for that other photo scandal? If not, then there's really no need to disambiguate this article by specifying "2008" in the article name. But like I said, if other editors feel strongly that it needs to be included in the title, then we can move the article name again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, here has no article on his previous scandal, so this article keeps at the title name. --Appletrees (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

[edit]

We need to vigorously cite sources and possibly remove content that we can't back up. This topic is about a developing sex scandal surrounding living persons, and we must be mindful of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons so that WP doesn't become liable to lawsuits because wrong or incorrect information was published. Write in a way to be as neutral as possible, and back up all claims. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, should we really be referring to these as "photos of the actors" instead of "photos of people resembling the actors" or "photos of people believed by internet users to be the actors"? The HK newspapers this morning are still calling them "疑似女藝人裸照" and refer to the people in question not as "the actors in the photos" but "卷入事件的藝人". (Probably cuz their lawyers made them write it that way.) cab (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah good point. I'll edit the article later to be careful of those kinds of wording (unless somebody else gets to it before I do). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've corrected the "photos of the actors" wording. It looks like there was actually only one instance of that, and incidently it was added in by me. Hahhah, sorry about that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the phrasing "people resembling the ...." is equally misleading. It suggests we know these are NOT the individuals involved, and we do not know that. "Appeared to show ... " or 'people appearing to be ..." would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.30.164 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo needed?

[edit]

I note that there may be concerns about WP:BLP and WP:COPY. However, due to the nature of the subject, by definition photographical, I don't know of many examples of articles more in need a photograph. OK, these are widely available on the internet, but it's not the same Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you meant by "but it's not the same", but yes, photos would be great for this article. But considering WP:BLP, I would rather err on the side of being too careful. I think all the stars involved have retained lawyers and the legality of the photos are still being questioned. But photos of them commenting on or reacting to this incident would be good. The Edison Chen apology video is readily available on YouTube. What's the policy on YouTube screen captures? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. 1) no statement of the authenticity of the related photos. 2) Under the primary victim, Edison Chen's appeal, don't disseminate such materials.
I would suggest using Chen's "usual" photo just as that one used in his page if you think a picture is really needed. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion. Instead of posting the photos which caused the stir, post low-res images of the front page newspaper articles, or a collage of these front pages. As I understand it, there are several media which carry the news with small sized cut off/censored pictures, or caricatures of the reactions/situations of the celebrities concerned. Jappalang (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great Idea! When I first saw this news on Tung Fong, I thought it was stupid cause it was only a photo oh Gills and Edison's head. Now that I've seen the originals, its obvious they whited out most of the lower half of the photo. We can also use the caption, "Hong Kong media speculating on the topic" or something rather. Dengero (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing

[edit]

Seems to me that by mentioning the media's early statement (and the artists' representatives claims) that these were likely computer/Photoshop manipulations, but then not mentioning the media's later playing down of that position there is a danger of (1) losing credibility and (b) suggesting that this is, in fact, the case. I work in HK media and can tell you that editors in my organisation made the decision four days ago NOT to refer to images as photoshopped any more. It would at least be reasonable to show the change. This article is not currently balanced. It appears skewed towards the "fake" side.

You may be doing this for "legal" reasons, but - given the number of people who have seen the photos - it does nothing to advance the credibility of the article, and strongly suggests a desire to make things look rather better than they are.

It could also be pointed out that there are literally HUNDREDS of photo manipulations of HK artistes on the web that neither the police nor anyone else has cared about.

Also, the reference to subjects wearing "underwear" in one set of photos is misleading and suggests rather less is going on than is actually the case. All that can be seen is a bra. The lower regions of the woman are blocked by one person's head.

As of this comment, a note that despite the police allegedly catching the suspects, more photos were released today. Two of them are clearly fakes. Two seem to belong to an earlier sequence. One is dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your reference to that is...? Dengero (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the appropriateness of giving a direct link. If you Google "kira" and "edison", you will see on the page that turns up another link to a page that has the new photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here's the report [1] as the reference of 6 February, 4 new photos leaked. The same day of bringing lawsuit of the suspected origin. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article on the police checking to see if the pics are real: [2] We could probably use it for something like a "real or fake" section. Pandacomics (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember WP:BLP correctly, it says we should be conservative when making controversial claims, so I would rather err on the side of being careful. If any sources are claiming that the pictures are authentic, we can add that info in, but only if we also say in the content of the article who exactly thinks the pictures are authentic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is making a claim either way. No Hong Kong newspaper or media organisation is currently claiming them to be fakes, particularly after the sequence of events by which they were acquired had been established. On legal advice, the two main English-language paprers are using the formulation "purportedly to be ..." or "purported to show ..." At the moment, particularly among those who've seen the photos, it's a much more controversial claim to suggest they are Photoshopped than otherwise. Given the number of fakes circulating with no police action, still unacknowledged by police, there clearly IS a reason why responses and interests this time are different. If you wish to avoid the issue, it is wiser not to debate authenticity at all rather than make a summary judgement on one side and mention only the possibility they were faked. To do so makes the article look biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Yung's Involvement

[edit]

I think that Joey's name should be taken off the introduction because it is generally understood now that Joey's picture was a hoax. First of all, this picture is from website that contains several hundreds of fake and manipulated pictures of Chinese celebrities (not to mention the fact that this picture has been around for years now which makes it impossible for it to be from the same source). Secondly Joey has never been romantically linked to Edison, and the fact that all the other female celebrities have several pictures while Joey has just one without any evidence whatsoever like before makes Joey's picture highly suspicious and most likely a hoax. Also, most discussion forums have already concluded that Joey's picture is fake. Therefore, Joey should not be mentioned in the article as it may be misleading people to think that Joey's picture is real. Either Joey's name should be taken off or an explanation explaining that Joey's picture is most likely a fake should be included.

蘋果] 03.02.08 醜 事 遠 播 ： 韓 國 網 友 熱 搜 報 道

疑 似 藝 人 淫 照 風 波 不 但 震 驚 全港 ， 連 韓 國 也 就 事 件 作 廣 泛 報 道 ， 當 地 搜 尋 網 站 雅 虎 韓 國 ， 昨 早 轉 載 了 報 章 《 每 日經 濟 》 的 報 道 ， 竟 錯 指 容 祖 兒 是 繼 鍾 欣 桐 及 張 芝 後 的 最 新 受 害 者 ， 該 網 站 更 登 出 祖兒 的 合 成 照 ， 令 她 非 常 無 辜 地 受 到 牽 連 。

In fact, the Chinese version does not include Joey, so I took her name out. Rayson 23:12 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - my apologies for introducing that error without doing enough research first. Since it's a holiday here I have now had the pleasure of doing much more "research" and it is clearly a fake that appeared some time ago. Paul Christensen (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Paul. Rayson 02:30 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:GoogleTrendsEdisonChenPhotoScandal.jpg

[edit]

This is English Wikipedia, and the image shows their name in Chinese character without any English caption. It needs to be converted to include their English names. --Appletrees (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet censorship

[edit]

Someone created an Internet censorship in Hong Kong page because of this issue, and is linked to 2000s in Hong Kong. I am tempted to call up a deletion. Other celebrity scandal images have been deleted off the internet before. Why is this deletion considered censorship? It seems quite bias on the issue. Benjwong (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As legislators and HK ISP providers are currently discussing the issue of internet censorship and "obscenity", it's a valid subject above and beyond this one case. I do agree though that it's not a well written article, at least in regard to the specific incident, and could be improved. Seems to me the solution is to expand that article to talk about other instances too, rather than to call for a deletion. Given suppression of internet freedoms in mainland China, and the police heavy handedness in relation to this (similar to their over-reaction to the GOD "triad" t-shirts) this is a valid issue. There is also a valid issue in HK in that the police are tending to use obscenity laws regarding the internet to handle privacy issues, because HK does not have a solid privacy law in place (as they did with the photos of Gillian Chung changing in Malaysia which were by no definition obscene). I also believe in this case that the "censorship" doesn't consist so much of direct deletion, but the police overstatement of what is illegal, designed to stop people seeing for themselves. Thousands of truly photoshopped images have been left on the internet untouched for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.212.133 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't believe we should delete that article. Let's figure out ways to improve it. Rayson 2:29 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Explain to me how the suppression of internet freedom in mainland China has anything to do with this since HK handles these matters within its own independent legal system. 208.120.21.190 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of photos

[edit]

While there may be media fascination over the strict number of photos which have appeared, this is in much the same vein as the penis envy which I feel this case has evoked up to the present. Many of the photos are clearly of a sequence, and the more voluminous shots may have been "stilled" from video footage, so the number count is totally meaningless. As and when the video(s) appear, people can make their own still shots to their hearts' desire. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think there is here to envy? I'm not convinced that subjective psychological diagnosis of Chen's critics by any of us is relevant to this issue. People have known Chen's reputation, like Clooney's for a long time, and not been so condemning. It's all about the pics. I think the bigger question relates to voyeurism, treatment of the women (shooting yourself in a mirror?), filming of oneself and others, and being careful with the material. Potentially, several lives and careers have been damaged. However, the question is whether such a number WOULD have been released without (a) the initial claim they were fake (which the poster wanted to disprove), and (b) the possibly inappropriate police response. For that reason the number count is relevant. The Hong Kong servers were terrible yesterday despite the fact it was not a working day. No guesses what everyone was out looking for. It's true that most of the new ones appear to be video frames though. And after the initial shock of who was in them, there isn't much extra value to be gained from more freeze frames.

There is a contradiction. The text says that there are 465 pics. But on the date (found everywhere in the web) there is the number 1'300 pics. Can anybody help? All those who want to count look for a .torrent file about 陈冠希 and you can count. BTW, do we now know who is Kira? 84.75.210.113 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

465 = number of unique photos distributed on the web thus far. 1300 = approximate number of all sex pictures that were found on Edison's hard drive. And no, we don't know who Kira is yet. Pandacomics (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Ohconfucius had undone my edits, ostensibly as it was "link spam". I believe the links are relevant to the article and none of them fulfil any criterion for "link spam". Please discuss on the talk page before you remove content. JSIN (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohconfucius, you cite WP:NOT and WP:BLP in blanking this section of this article's talk page. This is the talk page where content, or proposed content may be discussed. Please do not censor. You call the photographs "offending". But who, exactly, does it offend? Wikipedia is not censored for taste]. JSIN (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discussion copied from my talk page:

I have restored my edits. Please discuss on article's talk page. JSIN (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, it is not acceptable that you blank a section of the talk page, blank section of the article page, providing only vague edit summaries. Please address the issues I have raised, and please tell me how, in your opinion, the inclusion of the links is not an issue of censorship, and is in contravention of WP policy. In addition, in any circumstance, the blanking of the talk page is unacceptable. JSIN (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohconfucius, please stop blanking this section of the talk page. As far as I know, there is no WP policy that allows you to do so, and that allows you to attempt to silence discussion on content or proposed content. Please address the issues I have raised on this article talk page. JSIN (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are merely trying to insert these spamlinks here as you are fighting my opposition to having them in the main article under the guise of discussion. This is not acceptable, and I will keep on removing these links. I just hope some more administrators come here so we can get this out of the way Ohconfucius (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the strong belief that the links were in the talk page for discussion. Without the links being on the talk page, how can other editors be made aware of the content debate we are having? How can they consider whether it is appropriate if they are not to see the links? I believe you are attempting to censor these photos that have relevance to the article. They are clearly not linkspam. If you believe them to be so, please explain, as I cannot identify why, based on WP's policy page. I look forward to discussing these issues with you. JSIN (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you posted the links to both the article and the talk page. You had not bothered even discussing adding such links in the abstract - I fail to see that actual linking was necessary for people to "get the picture" Ohconfucius (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you will kindly look at the previous page revision, I posted the links on the talk page, along with the belief they would be suitable for inclusion in the article. This was a gesture of goodwill, in notifying editors of my contribution and my rationale for it. Again, I ask of you - without seeing the links, how can editors make a judgment on whether it is appropriate? JSIN (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3R warning

[edit]

To JSIN: For some reason, I cannot post to your talk page. Nevertheless, I consider that you are in breach of the three revert rule and ask you to desist in link-spamming wikipedia, at least until a consensus is reached on whether these links can stay. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attention in this matter. Please be kind enough to explain why you believe it is link-spamming. I see no reason why your rationale cannot be posted here. Do you believe it is inappropriate to have Chen's apology video as a link from this article? In any case, the links should stay on talk page, precisely so that editors may decide whether they are fit for inclusion. If you insist on removing them from talk page, isn't that the same as removing them from the agenda for discussion?
In addition, I had posted this content to the talk page first, and you had reverted a number of times, blanking it. Accordingly, I believe you are in contravention of 3RR rule. JSIN (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't read the article, Edison's video apology are already linked in the body of the article, as is one of the Blemish links. Even so, I am unsure that The Blemish would pass muster as a reliable source, but that's another issue. What I really objected to was your posting THREE links to where people can download the photographs. That cannot, IMHO, be considered anything but link-spamming. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You doggedly say it is "linkspamming". Please explain to me exactly WHY it fits into WP's definition of linkspamming. I do not believe it is linkspamming. It is simply providing the media that is the subject of this whole article. In the same way, Budd Dwyer has an external link to the video of his public suicide. JSIN (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3R warning

[edit]

To Ohconfucius: I have reason to believe you are in breach of the three revert rule and ask you to desist in blanking sections of the talk page, in order to avoid discussion of content (diffs: [3] [4] [5] [6]). JSIN (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Ohconfucius (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are you, JSIN, you added back the contents despite the revert. So both of you are engaging in 3RR violation. (And remember that 2 wrongs don't make 1 right) OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

We will *not* link to any postings of the photos; assuming that they are copyrighted by the original photographer. Our policies strictly prohibit linking to any material which directly furthers the violation of copyrights. Any such links will be reverted and anyone adding such links is subject to being blocked. FCYTravis (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To JSIN: I think were done, here. Now please let us get back down to work. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not at all "done", and I request that you kindly answer my queries, which I have made, many times. JSIN (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JSIN The case made above by FCYTravis is clear. The copyright owner of these materials has made it clear in the video linked in the article that he has not given permission for these photos to be used in any way and has specifically requested for any copies of them to be deleted and for them not to be promulgated. That's all we need to know - Wiki does not knowingly link to material in clear breach of copyright. The fact that there are dozens of copies out on the internet (and tens of thousands of copies at least on other peoples' PCs) does not, legally, put them in the public domain.Paul Christensen (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto what above said (other than JSIN's comments). Having 1000 illegal copies on ther internet does not make the content released into public domain. Only the original photographer, that is Edison Chen, can release it into public domain. (But I can tell you this is never going to happen) OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
screencaps I believe are treated somewhat differently in terms of copyrights that apply to them, due to the fact they are created by the person who made the screencap. Well, not the best explaination. Better to think of it like when you are photocopying a book. It is obviously wrong to photocopy the entire book, but it is perfectly legally fine to photocopy a handful of pages from the book. Likewise a screencap is not taking all the images from an entire movie file and the audio as well, but just one very very very very tiny piece of it. Lets put up a screencap or three, a bunch of them are that. Mathmo Talk 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's just one problem with your book analogy: the Edison Chen photos are not authorized for release by the owner. Books found at a library are authorized for release. As OhanaUnited indicated, a release of unauthorized content to the public does not give people the authority to use - whether they're the originals or rips such as reduction in resolution. Also remember that although English Wikipedia is housed in the U.S., fair use laws of Hong Kong or the U.S. do not apply on Wikipedia. For images to be approved as free by Wikimedia, there must be a claim made where the article's main premiss cannot be explained without photos. IMHO, I think the article can define itself without the photographs. Seeing a doctored-up photo of Edison and Gilian will add zero. Groink (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the removal of the zonaeuropa link in talking about images, I nevertheless believe it is a valuable resource in offering translations of Chinese newspaper articles. Much has been written in the Chinese press which has not appeared in the English language journals (including detailed interview/transcripts of what was said by Tang King-shing and Vincent Wong), so while some of the citations point to Chinese articles, it is undoubtedly useful for the non-Chinese audience who may want to check out the validity and correctness of the some of the citations, as well as read some of the jucier morsels of tabloid gossip which cannot be cited here. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main article summary on artists' respective pages.

[edit]

Personally, I think the summary on Bobo, Gillan, Cecilia and Edison's page should be the same. A short, crisp, if-you-are-interested-please-click-link sort of summary. Like the one on Bobo Chan's page.

In January and February 2008 many explicit photos were found online involving Bobo Chan and Edison Chen. The scandal also involved Gillian Chung and Cecilia Cheung.[1]

Just change the words around for the other 3. Since the page is about the artists, this scandal shouldn't be too much into the page. If people are interested, they can always click on the main page for a whole lot more info. What do you say? 2 supports and I'll change them all. Dengero (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was also trying to find a form of words which could consistently be used in all three without being over-concise or misleading about the authenticity of the photos or the surrounding legal furore, but I would settle for the form you suggested, except for replacing "involving" with "ostensibly involving" unless someone has any better suggestion. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ batgwa.com. "batgwa.com." Edison's Conquests Sex Photos – Suspect Arrested Retrieved on 2008-01-31.

Vincy Yeung

[edit]

Three new pictures of Vincy Yeung (Albert Yeung's niece) surfaced showing her nude in the shower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.150.178 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius: you've put Vincy's age as 18 (as of today presumably). Do you have a source for that? All I can find online one or two pages from March 2007 saying that she was 19 then.Paul Christensen (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theblemish.com was the source. Whether she's 18 or 19 is no big deal, but the important fact is she was a minor when the relationship started. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SCMP today says she's currently 19, and reports from last March also say 19, so she's probably approaching 20. But I don't think anyone's suggesting she was under the age of consent (16 in Hong Kong, and, a quick bit of research suggests, also in Massachusetts) when the relationship started. So why do you say that the fact she was (almost certainly) under 18 when the relationship started is "important"?Paul Christensen (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the affair is unfolding, more and more attention is being paid to the time-line of events, through analysis of known facts as to when each set of photos was taken, and when Edison may have met A or B or C. It has been widely reported that the relationship with Vincie started 3 or 4 years ago; The writer in The Blemish declined to post pictures of Vincie saying that he can't be sure she wasn't a minor when the photos were taken. Ohconfucius (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not sure I understand. She was clearly over the age of consent in HK when the pics were taken. Any publication of pics without the consent of the person involved is a crime in pretty much any jurisdiction regardless of the age of the person. So whether or not she was under 18 when the photos were taken is pretty much irrelevant (given that she was 16 or more)

Having said that, in most jurisdictions publishing indecent pictures of someone under the age of 18 is a more serious offence than if they are over 18 (I'm not sure if a person under the age of 18 can give legal consent to such pictures being published). But then are pictures of someone in the shower "indecent"? The pics in question are not of the same sort as the others, which are clearly "indecent", and perhaps "obscene".Paul Christensen (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. Apple Daily reports the police are satisfied that Vincie was over the legal age when the photos were taken, (viz:"警方消息透露，根據照片本身的資料紀錄，拍照日期應為05年底，由此推算相中人當時已逾16歲，不構成兒童色情物品") but I still think the speculation was legitimate and may still be worthy of mention. As we are on the subject, what constitutes "publication" -it's OK to put censored versions of the photos on newspaper front pages but not on the internet.... Shome mishtake shurely ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just publication. Even just possessing or taking the photos could be a crime in some countries. I have no idea if this applies to HK or Massachusetts but in some countries, Canada for example, it would be considered Child pornography. The fact that the person is over the age of consent for sexual intercourse doesn't mean that it's okay to take photos of the person having sex or in sexually suggestive poses. Both of the linked articles are useful. Note also that these laws apply to anyone located where they apply. So for example, regardless of the copyright issues possesing photos depicting sexually suggestive poses or intercourse or a person under the age of 18 would be illegal for all Canadian residents regardless of what HK or Massachusetts law says about these photos. Of course this is all OR but it's worth bearing in mind nevertheless that the fact the intercourse was legal doesn't mean the photos are. P.S. From what I can tell federal US law means pornography of anyone under the age of 18 is child pornography. The only question would be whether it would be considered pornography since comments above suggest it's simply nudity in the shower without necessarily being sexually suggestive. P.S. 2 Of course it's fairly rare for the police to bother to go after people for taking photos for personal viewing when the intercourse was legal Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Push for GA

[edit]

Once this event is over, reckon we can push it to GA? It's quite well sourced as per now, and if we keep it up, it's not a bad thought. Dengero (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case is adjourned to Feb 22. This is still on going. Benjwong (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely we can push for GA. But this whole thing could potentially last for a while. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, I don't think it's gonna end anytime soon. I mean, he has been hiding for all these times. But I do wanna help. I can do some translation work. TheAsianGURU (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change statics's

[edit]

Some one change the statics on this page. Source http://coolsmurf.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/more-revealing-pictures-of-gillian-and-cecilia-released/ --Angelwhite01 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

run ons, like this, and this, and this

[edit]

Pardon my rant, but why are some of the sentences so freaking long. Pandacomics (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This event is still on going. I don't know why it is in past tense. --Angelwhite01 (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are bothered to change it into past tense after the event, sure, why not use present tense. Dengero (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because February 8 passed by a while ago. Likewise with all the other dates that aren't today. However, if a certain event is ongoing (e.g. the 29-year-old being held in custody), then you can use the perfect tense. The general idea is that by the time news comes out, the event will have passed long ago, which would require use of a past tense (simple or perfect past). Pandacomics (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block deletion

[edit]

I don't think the citation and paragraph re sniper is directly relevant although it was mistaken for a swipe by Edison at the publication of photos. I am therefore deleting it per WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table format

[edit]

Why is someone so insistent on the current format of the table indicating the latest number of photos online? The evolution of photographs which has been a matter of great interest is now gone; and the full names in Cantonese pinyin and simplified Chinese has also reappeared. Are these full names necessary? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of simplified is pretty useless. The Google Trends chart only goes by the Traditional script. Pandacomics (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put the Cantonese pinyin names there, and they have been helpful for me when discussing with Cantonese friends about the scandal. I can't read Chinese but they know at least some of the people by their Cantonese name not the English one, even when talking in English... (Gillian and Edison tend to be known by their English names even by Cantonese, but Cecilia seems to be much better known as Pak-Chi). Is it really a big deal to have them there?Paul Christensen (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The police

[edit]

Can we agree whether the Police should be presented as singular or plural noun, as it "The Police is" vs "The Police are"? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well assuming this article is making use of Hong Kong English, I'd probably go with "are". "Police are investigating the disappearance of an 18-year-old male." Yeah, makes sense. Pandacomics (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Charges laid

[edit]

News has it that the 1st picture of Edison posted on the internet is an indecent (不雅) article, not an obscene (淫褻) article. The law relating to these 2 types of classification is very different. Let's look at that in the below attached section.

This means that, while Obscene 淫褻 article carries a maximum sentence of 3 years, Indecent article only carries a maximum sentence of 12 months.

So... what's the big deal? It's a huge deal.

First. If the police have a arresting warrant for the 1st guy they caught, that means the court have issued a charge for arresting this man before the photo is classified. It means any charges made were based on heresay and were not based on correct procedures.

However if the arrest was made without a warrant, this is only legal if the Police reasonably believes the suspect is involved in an arrestable offenses under Common Law. Lets assume the Police have a reasonable believe for now. (It may be that their assumption is not reasonable in the 1st place) An arrestable offence is one which carries a maximum sentence exceeding 12 months.

So Mr. Chung is held in custody for 8 weeks, charged with a crime in which he did not commit (Obscene Publication), and if they change the charge to Indecent Publication, then the Police have illegally arrested Mr. Chung.

Furthermore, Mr. Chung have not been protected by the HKSAR Bill or Rights Ordinance (BORO) in which article 11 clearly states presumption of innocence, part 2a) to be informed promptly of his charges and part 2c) to be tried without undue delay.

While we as public do not know if Article 11, part 2g) is relevant to Mr Chung's case (not to be compelled...to confess guilt), we can only try to imagine how we would feel to have 100 cops arresting coming after us to arrest us.

What should REALLY concern us is.... How a normal person like me, un-trained in legal profession. Not educated in law, can find out about these laws, while those who are SUPPOSED to be good in the legal community, i.e. Police, Lawyers and JUDGES, can totally miss out on noting these issues?!

Trust me, just try and find HK bill of rights in Google and you'd probably find a lot more information than which I've provided.

Now, if the police can illegally detain people (arrestable offenses) and the judges can hold them without charges for 8 weeks, can't it happen to anyone of us?!

This is worse than article 23! This IS practically enacting article 23 without passing the law. Or is it just a case of Police being able to get away with a criminal act (illegally detaining a suspect) ?

And if there was a warrant to arrest him, isn't it proven now that the warrant is based on false believes? (Obscene vs Indecent classification)

Doesn't this mean that now the government have opened a loophole for Mr Chung to sue for damages (BORO Article 11 part 5) ?

And if successful, doesn't it mean that, because the police and the judge were not applying the laws properly when they should have, we as the tax-payers have to foot the bill for their errors?!

Is that how our Tax is being spent? On hiring these cops and judges and paying for errors?!

I can't believe the amount of absurdities that is written here. All along the court has been applying the law correctly, it's just that the statutory scheme itself is problematic.
At present, there is NO legal requirement that an article has to be classified before prosecution is proceeded with. In fact, the prevalent practice is to charge first and then ask the Obscene Article Tribunal (OAT) for classification later. The Control of Indecent and Obscene Articles Ordinance does not provide for this and does not prohibit this. The only requirement is that the police must have reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed the offence in question. Therefore, the law itself is problematic, but it is applied correctly by the courts.
For any arrest warrant to be issued, only a probable cause has to be shown. Issuing a warrant before a photo is classified has nothing wrong with it has long as the magistrate is satisfied there is a probable cause the person to be arrested has committed the crime in question. There is no requirement that the suspicion be proved before issuing the warrant is issued, because that's in most cases impossible.
Then, you get the concept of arrestable offence hopelessly wrong. The concept of arrestable offence applies only to citizens: the police has a greater power to arrest under s.50 of the Police Force Ordinance which allows them to arrest anyone as long as there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law.
Under the current law, there is nothing wrong with holding someone in custody for a crime that it turned out he did not commit, provided that there is reasonable suspicion. That's the point of having a trial isn' it? A trial is to determine if someone is guilty or not! Your fallacy lies in presupposing we can determine if someone actually committed a crime before bringing him to court! That's absurd! One can harbour reasonable suspicion that someone committed a crime, but cannot be sure unless the court pronounces him so. This is exactly the presumption of innocence in practice. If it's subsequently shown that the police did not harbour reasonable suspicion, the aggrieved person can sue the police for damages. To appreciate this, one has to differentiate between custody and imprisonment, which are two different legal concepts.
The right to be informed of one's charges is clearly not engaged in this case. I'm sure the defendant was notified, it's standard procedure that I've never heard that has not been followed. There is also nothing to suggest the arrested man had been charged with undue delay. Due to practicalities (you have no idea how congested the courts are and the need of time for investigation), I would say 8 weeks is quick judging by normal standards. That's why the word "undue" was inserted to take account of the practicalities. However, it is quite dubious why bail was refused in the first place. But judges are normally happy to follow the advice of the prosecution because the prosecution has the evidence in hand.
Therefore, this teaches us the lesson not to start accusing before getting our concepts right. It shows how a normal person, un-trained in legal profession, can hopelessly misunderstand the law.
I have deleted the line about the presumption of innocence. After checking the references, I am convinced Tim Hamlett's legal concepts were flawed, and as he was not legally trained, his legal opinion ought to be treated as unreliable sources.Craddocktm (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter: 390 Section: 24 CONTROL OF OBSCENE AND INDECENT ARTICLES ORDINANCE

[edit]

(1) A person shall not publish an indecent article- 

                 (a) where-
                       (i) the article has no cover or packaging or the covers or packaging is not indecent, unless the article (together with its covers or packaging, if any) is sealed in a transparent wrapper;
                       (ii) either the front cover or back cover of the article or both such covers are indecent (whether or not the article has any packaging and whether or not the packaging is indecent), unless the article (together with the covers, and packaging if any) is sealed in a completely opaque wrapper; or
                       (iii) the packaging of the article is indecent (whether or not the article has any cover and whether or not the covers are indecent), unless the article (together with the covers, if any, and the packaging) is sealed in a completely opaque wrapper;(b) where the article is an article-
                       (i) described in paragraph (a)(i), unless the article bears; or
                       (ii) described in paragraph (a)(ii) or (iii), unless the article and the completely opaque wrapper each bears,
                       a notice which is in the form specified in subsection (1D) and is displayed in accordance with subsection (1C); and(c) unless the article, and its transparent wrapper or completely opaque wrapper, as the case may be, comply with the relevant requirements in subsections (1A) and (1B). (Replaced 73 of 1995 s. 8)

(1A) Subject to subsections (1B) and (1C), where an indecent article is published- 

                 (a) if it is an article which is sealed in a completely opaque wrapper, nothing other than the name of the article, its date of publication, issue number and selling price shall be displayed on its completely opaque wrapper; or
                 (b) if it is an article which is sealed in a transparent wrapper, nothing shall be displayed on its transparent wrapper. (Added 73 of 1995 s. 8)

(1B) Where an indecent article is published- 

                 (a) it shall have-
                       (i) where it has no packaging, printed either on its front cover or back cover;
                       (ii) where it has any packaging, (whether or not it has any covers) printed on its packaging; or
                       (iii) where it has no cover or packaging, printed on a label affixed to the article and which occupies the whole article; and(b) where it is sealed in a completely opaque wrapper, it shall have in addition to the requirement in paragraph (a) printed on either side of the completely opaque wrapper,

clearly and conspicuously, the name, the full address of place of business and the telephone number of the publisher. (Added 73 of 1995 s. 8) (1C) Where an indecent article is published, the notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be displayed so that it is easily noticeable- 

                 (a) (i) on both the front and back covers of the article;
                       (ii) on the packaging of the article if the article has no cover; or
                       (iii) on a label affixed to the article and which occupies the whole article if the article has no cover or packaging; and(b) on both sides of its completely opaque wrapper where the article (together with its covers or packaging, if any) is sealed in a completely opaque wrapper. (Added 73 of 1995 s. 8)

(1D) The notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be in the following form- 

     "WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS
                 警告： 本物品內容可能令人反感；不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年詅未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。";

and the following shall apply in respect of the notice- 

                 (a) the letters and characters constituting the notice shall occupy at least-
                       (i) (A) 20% of each cover of the article;
                             (B) 20% of the packaging of the article if the article has no cover; or
                             (C) 20% of a label affixed to the article and which occupies the whole article if the article has no cover or packaging; and(ii) 20% of each side of its completely opaque wrapper where the article (together with its covers or packaging, if any) is sealed in a completely opaque wrapper;(b) the letters and characters referred to in paragraph (a) shall be of a colour which contrasts with the colour of the background upon which they are printed;
                 (c) the area within which the notice is displayed shall not contain anything other than the letters and characters constituting the notice. (Added 73 of 1995 s. 8)(1E) (a) (i) In case the publisher and the printer of the indecent article are the same person, that person; or
                       (ii) in any other case, the publisher of the article,
                       shall ensure that the requirements of subsections (1A), (1B), (1C) and (1D) are complied with.
                 (b) Subject to subsection (3), any publisher or printer, as the case may be, who contravenes paragraph (a), whether or not he knows that the article is an indecent article, commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $400000 and to imprisonment for 12 months on his first conviction, and to a fine of $800000 and to imprisonment for 12 months on a second or subsequent conviction.
                 (c) Any person who is not the publisher of an indecent article but wilfully or knowingly allows his name to be printed on it or its completely opaque wrapper (as may be appropriate) as the publisher of it, commits an offence and is liable to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 6 months. (Added 73 of 1995 s. 8)

(1F) In subsection (1E), with respect to an indecent article- "the publisher" (出版人) means the person who causes, manages or controls the printing, manufacturing or reproduction of it, as the case may be; "the printer" (印刷人) means the person who prints, manufactures or reproduces it, as the case may be. (Added 73 of 1995 s. 8) (2) Subject to subsection (3), any person who contravenes subsection (1), whether or not he knows that the article is an indecent article, commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $400000 and to imprisonment for 12 months on his first conviction, and to a fine of $800000 and to imprisonment for 12 months on a second or subsequent conviction. (Amended 73 of 1995 s. 8) (3) It shall be a defence to a charge under this section to prove that the article the subject of the charge is, or was at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, classified as a Class I article. (Enacted 1987)

Introduction, 3rd paragraph

[edit]

Note, I haven't deleted this paragraph yet as I believe discussion should be in place first. Why is such biased, anti-police language used in this instance? There's already a separate section later on criticizing the police actions. The introduction should be there to present the basic facts, not introducing one side's opinion (without the other) already!!!

PS If nobody replies to this within 72 hours I shall delete the 'aforementioned' paragraph. Jsw663 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, not replying within 72 hours does not give you the right to delete the paragraph. Sure, being bold is nice, but as this article covers a frequently-edited current event, you can't assume that no one will make a comment about it. Thanks for the tone-down, but the paragraph acts as a summary for community response to police actions. The lead, in fact, acts as a summary for all angles covered in the main content section of the article. (see: WP:LEAD) As for "one side's opinion (without the other)", if you can find sources defending police actions, go right ahead. After that, you can add it in to the lead using summary style. Pandacomics (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tone it down, by all means. It is customary to have text in the lead section which summarises the main points of the remaining article, so deletion maybe be a bit draconian. I think deletion of the third sentence of the paragraph would be OK, but the gist of the other two sentences should remain. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Q?

[edit]

Why isn't her name anywhere in the article? TheAsianGURU (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

she's hasn't been implicated. merely rumours at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.56.214 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely a rumor. The story and investigation is already out there. I don't know if the Hong Kong news outlets have reported on it or not as I can't read Chinese well enough. Arsonal (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Kira can say anything he wants. As of this writing, no photos of Maggie Q have surfaced. Wikipedia guidelines doesn't allow for speculation. Groink (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How a doofus like this could end up with Grade A prime like Maggie Q is beyond me. I for one refuse to believe the rumors. Ndriley97 (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rumors are not true.Dumaka (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am coming to this really late. But, yes rumors are true. There is a picture of her in Edison Chen's laundry room. 86.45.241.140 (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs Semi-Protection

[edit]

This page gets around 10 IP edits per day, I see IP Edit RV all the time, Semi-Protection (No IP Edit) is needed. What do you guys think? TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dengero (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, like I mentioned it in talk Project H.K.‎, I don't know how it's done. Does it have to be done by an admin? This needs to take action fast. I can already feel it...TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make an request here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengero (talk • contribs) 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Requested. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not manifestly a problem yet, as disruptive or vandal edits there have not been sufficiently frequently. Having a high number of IP edits in itself is not a strong enough justification as there are many editors who do not log in, so no administrator will protect it. The only problem I see is that Fernvale insists on making unnecessary column additions to the table. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they didn't "Decline" my request either...seems like it's just lost......Anyway, I think there will be massive IP edits to come, since the case is going to settle sometime in the future. Well, we'll see. TheAsianGURU (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AsianGURU, yes, only admins can protect/unprotect a page. But don't worry. I watchlisted this article since the day it's created. If heavy vandalism activity occurs, I will semi-protect it. (number of protection days to be determined) OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

societal impact

[edit]

Anyone in favour of a societal impact section similar to what exists on the Bus Uncle page? Pandacomics (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be "Social impact" or "Societal impact"? And what sources do we have for a section like that? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Social, yes. Thank you, Professor Hong. Well, I was thinking we could move impact/influence-related parts of the text into a new section, that's all. Pandacomics (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be a smart-ass. It was a legitimate question. "Societal" is a real word, too. But anyway, about the possible new section itself. Bus Uncle had people commenting and writing articles about the impact of the internet and about why the hell people cared so much about a video clip of an argument that broke out on a bus. I don't really see much on this article that comments on the impact of this scandal on society in general. I've basically gotten bored with this so I haven't been paying attention to the media, but there may be some sources out there that discuss what impact this has on HK society.
But another thing - didn't the article have content about how Edison was dropped from an endorsement deal and a movie, and how Twins was dropped from a Disney New Year music video? I don't see it in the article anymore. We need to mention the impact of this scandal on the celebrities' careers. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kira

[edit]

Maybe I missed something - Did Kira actually post anything (ie photos)? There has been much attention in some of the Chinese press based on Kira talk on blogs etc about what he/she would do. However, there is a dearth of reliable information, and I am tending to believe that Kira may be just an elaborate hoax. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Kira was the nickname given to the source of the photos. The source may be a single person or a group of people. The people doing the distribution may be Kira or someone close to them. We don't know at the moment. F (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clinical discussion of photo contents goes against Wikipedia's BLP policy

[edit]

Any clinical description of the contents of the photos, which were never intended for public release, and the private sex acts shown, appears to be a violation of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, which states (under Presumption in favor of privacy): "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." 128.218.20.78 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, all your edits are sexual related scandals. UCSF's bandwidth is put in good use here. Look, my tax dollar at work people!!!! TheAsianGURU (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is factual and is not OR, meaning it has been sourced from verifiable and reputable sources, then its fair game. The actually publishing of the photos may be an issue of legal discussion, but the incident itself is in the public domain and may be described fully provided, once again, the information is factually accurate and supported by sources. It's also important to include clinical description so that no misrepresentation of the photos is possible, which would definitely violate BLP. "Do no harm" is an important provision, however it must be balanced by what already exists in the public record. Put another way, Wikipedia's place is not to create scandal, but it's perfectly acceptable for it to report scandal once other media has done so (and it's verified, truthful, etc) It would also be against BLP to clinically describe photos or video that has not been released -- such as I believe is the case with the alleged video footage mentioned in the article. If it never circulated and is not described in court documents, then it shouldn't be described beyond acknowledging the claim. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

22 days in the headlines

[edit]

Does this set some sort of record? F (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what paper, and a reference. Dengero (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently more consecutive days headline coverage than SARS - a couple of the references (chinese wikipedia / here?) have the stats. 167.247.219.10 (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"An u(n)named female staff member at Baidu posted the images"

[edit]

I don't see this in the sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also?

[edit]

Does anyone think that the links in the see also section doesn't really relate to this incident, especially the top-10 bribing one? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "relate"? Benjwong (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The common denominator appears to be Albert Yeung, but that's about all. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like celebrity incidents around similar groups of people. Benjwong (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout for EEG?

[edit]

Not all that relevant from what I can see.... commercial websites get hacked all the time, and I don't see anything in the source which indicates how it may be relevant to the Edison story, so the relationship is rather tenuous. Also the fact that someone posted malware disguised as photos/videos is even more tenuously connected to EEG. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was removed. Benjwong (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

[edit]

The following text was removed; 'In the early hours on Chinese New Year's eve, several hundred more photographs with two new faces appeared on the Internet, as promised, **in effect cocking a snoot at the Hong Kong Police**' I know what cocking a snoot is meant to mean, but I don't think average Wiki users are going to understand. Also it's very un encyclopaedic language and POV. Shaybear♥ —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bubbling Under"?

[edit]

Is that really the best title for that section? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

I haven't really been following this, but it appears that Sze Ho-Chun, who was investigated back in February 2008 for this, has been found guilty and is going to be sentenced:

  • "Guilty verdict in HK sex scandal". BBC News. 29 April 2009. Retrieved 30 April 2009.

Not sure if it's too early to update the article or anything, just figured I should throw this out there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming rewite

[edit]

I think it's about time for a rewrite of this article. It has gone past the growth phase and should consolidate. It has developed as events unfolded, and reads like a news article. I will be taking a top-down approach, restructuring sections first, and then excising excessive detail from the article. Any thoughts?Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are HK actresses regarded as prostitutes?

[edit]

Is there an attitude among HK people that "actresses" and female "models" and "singers" are prostitutes? Does this scandal confirm that HK actresses below the surface are prostitutes? 86.176.189.197 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it offensive, you commented upon it and then removed the section? These women can re-invented themselves as AV actresses, and not be short of an acting career. 86.178.78.165 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The actresses are not prostitutes. They're not celebrated as such. And, they don't go out of their way to make themselves out to be prostitutes. The entertainment media in Hong Kong is modeled after the very extreme British paparazzi. And, like the British media, the HK media is obsessed over sex scandals, mostly because of demand by the subscribers. It isn't just actresses. Politicians and other dignitaries also make headlines whenever a video or series of photos are leaked out. And, it isn't even just HK. Many of other Asian countries' media are obsessed over these kinds of stories. I think what makes these kinds of scandals stick out is that many Asian cultures basically taboo sexuality. And, like many other things, the more restrictive the content, the more people crave for that kind of stuff. Groink (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Edison Chen photo scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Edison Chen photo scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Edison Chen photo scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edison_Chen_photo_scandal&oldid=1253544733"