Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Galendalia (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 14 May 2020 (→Re: "whitewashing effort"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hong Kong Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Hong Kong To-do: edit history watch purge Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (33) Collaboration needed Recommend topic Improvement needed GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (298) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,067) Image needed (348) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,518) • Stub-Class articles (6,676) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (379) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,338) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Recurring controversial edits

@Eterror: made a major, unexplained change which brought the article back to a Feb 2016 version that was previously reverted for cause by @Citobun:. @Ohconfucius: also reverted a similarly contentious Eterror edit back in May 2016. I have reverted Eterror's latest massive changes, which require some justification, with talk discussion here as required. Dl2000 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again. I suspect that this could be the actions of a COI account. -- Ohc  22:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And again – I've reported the user at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Citobun (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully after the block, Eterror will approach any article edits differently. Thanks to both of you for the added watching/reverting. Dl2000 (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2019

Due to the 2019 independence protests stemming from the proposed extradition bill, there is renewed interest in hong kong politics. Changes have been made by pro-beijing editors with subjective comments such as "he has become a voice of reason against pro indendence movement and civil disobedience.JOSHUA4230 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yuen Long mobs

Recent edit by Beijing IP address 47.75.196.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) claims that the Yuen Long mobs were "primarily targeting those wore black and most of whom just got back from Causeway Bay protests". This is not reflected in coverage by reliable sources, which states that commuters, protesters, and journalists were all targeted. Citobun (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I would remind editors not to input any potentially libellous content per the DS notice above. STSC (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What is his party?

I don't see it mentioned. Kaihsu (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kaihsu Junius Ho is an independent candidate, but he is often labelled as a member of pro-beijing camp. This is a reasonable move given that he often votes in favour of bills or motions that the DAB backs. However, it is also important to note that Ho do go against the standard narrative of the East at times, this is demonstrated in his voting in favour of Tiananmen square protest memoralization at the Legislative Council.Thomaslam1990 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "whitewashing effort"

@Citobun

Refer to 08:14, 13 May 2020

Changing the phrase 'attackers' to 'white-shirters' is not a whitewashing move. It is important that we clarify that when Junius Ho shook hands with those white-shirters the attack has yet to occur. It is only after the Yuen Long Incident that they should be labelled as attackers.

Furthermore, your blanket reversion fails to make note of my contributions to clarify/update certain controversies as mapped out on the wikipedia page. The edits were rightly cited after @Underbar dk 's contribution.

Addition to philanthropy sections is long-due. The page as it is is already very biased with no mention of his political/legal contribution to the community. The move to assume that I have a conflict of interest is highly unfounded. Should you believe that this is the case, surely you also ought to clarify your interests? At least read the ammendments I made and comment on which parts you would like to dispute so we can have a discussion from there on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaslam1990 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that the Yuen Long attack occurred already, I think we can call them "attackers" now. I posted a WP:COI tag on your talk page as I always would when a single-purpose account engages in (what appears to me to be) white-washing, PR work, etc. I also note that this article has a long history of editing by users with undeclared COI, as previous revisions were incredibly promotional and unencyclopedic in tone. I do not have any conflict of interest to declare. Please review WP:COI, Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution disclosure, and ensure that you are complying to any relevant policies. Thank you, Citobun (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To your first point, that is obviously untrue. Not distinguishing the temporal order of the two events will inevitably lead to bias and flavouring of the texts. Furthermore, read the page as it is right now. It's literally littered with controversies and citations of people expressing their opinions. For example, "knife-like"? It was literally reported on the news that it's a 33-cm long blade. The Inciting murder of independence supporters section is not even factually correct. Ho never said those words in conjunction during the rally. I point this out in my edits, I clarified the facts and kept the rest. I also updated the SRA incident and the knife attack incident with correct citations. I addressed @Kaihsu 's question regarding his political affiliations. And many more. You obviously did not read through my edits and decided to blanket delete the edits I made with correct citations. FYI, I do not have any conflict of interest to declare, and I'm not being paid to do any of this. Thomaslam1990 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I updated the knife description.

You have added a lot of problematic content. For instance, the passage about how "Albert Ho's defeat may also owe to the controversy where he was caught browsing soft-pornography of young female models during a meeting" is not reflected in the cited sources, one of which is an opinion piece. Why did you shorten the full title of the 2014 movement, "Occupy Central with Love and Peace", to "Occupy Central"? The passage about "Colin Sparks" is not cited to any reliable secondary sources and basically seems trivial. I don't agree with your argument about the "attackers" terminology, and besides, you also changed "attackers" to "white-shirters" in a passage regarding a comment Ho made AFTER the attack, so what then? Citobun (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Good, we're making progress. What about the clarifications I made on the SRA/legal qualification controversy and the false statements made under Inciting murder of independence supporters? I was in the middle of editing the page when you blanket reverted everything and accused me of COI. I knew what is going to publish was gonna be edited somehow, and given the Pending Changes Protection, I was using the publish as more or less a save button because I had unstable internet and I wrote lots. Meet me halfway and look at the positive contributions I've made. I'm also willing to redact the subsequent white-shirter changes, so long as the temporal and causal orders are correct on the incident. I also want to update news regarding the Yuen Long incident aftermath, especially in matters current to LegCo censure motion on both Junius Ho and Lam Cheuk-ting. Re: Edits on Albert Ho, I admit that what was said may not necessarily be reflected in the news cited, but it is nonetheless true that said controversy did impact the election results. Furthermore, re: occupy central edit, that was a mistake, I do not recall doing that, it must have occurred when I shifted sections back and forth.Thomaslam1990 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Junius Ho and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Galendalia CVU Member \ 04:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Citobun: and @Thomaslam1990: - As far as the Third Opinion Request asked for by Thomaslam1990, it was asked for a couple of hours after their discussion above, which is not a substantive time for a response. I would recommend giving more time to the other editor to respond. I am making some general recommendations though. In reviewing the article, I can say it is not an easy read for the way in which it was written. It is highly recommended that this be written like an encyclopedic article instead of reading it as an autobiography. As far as the "whitewashing" as put forth in the third opinion request, there seems to be a lot of controversy on this page which IMO is too much (but of course most politicians in any country have them based on research for my college course on history I actually focused my final paper on controversies within the governments). What I am recommending is all parts need to neutral and for you to read "Don't teach the controversy" essay I hope this helps, if you need more clarification or anything, please feel free to ping me. As a reminder, this is only a third opinion and is not binding in any way. If you still feel that this needs to go to the next step, please make sure you get enough editors' comments on this page before opening the next step in the dispute resolution process. I am a volunteer with the dispute resolution noticeboard, so shall it get to that point, I will not be your moderator, nor can I be named as an editor since I am only providing a third opinion. Have a great one and keep on helping Misplaced Pages! Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ 05:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: Thank you for your comments, I hope your input would convinvce @Citobun: to collaborate with me to ensure that the page adheres a neutral stance, and that the controversies integrated with other sub-sections for a better read and more informed documentation of the events in question.Thomaslam1990 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Thomaslam1990 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC) (P.S: Noted Thanks)

@Thomaslam1990: No problem! Always remember to sign your signature by adding ~~~~ to the end of your edits and in the future when you request a third opinion be sure to post it in the discussion that you have requested such (and the same for any dispute resolution). Cheers! Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ 06:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Galendalia:. I don't have much time at the moment but briefly want to say I don't object to neutral contributions nor corrections. For example, if Ho's "killed mercilessly" comment is misquoted, it should definitely be corrected. I object to edits that seem to constitute whitewashing, using unnecessarily obtuse language (e.g. "white-shirters" over "attackers"), etc. I feel this way about any Misplaced Pages article. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Citobun: - You would be correct in this circumstance as the language in an article such as that is not an NPOV and if quoting something, it should be the exact quote. If paraphrasing it should have the same meaning and not simply slang or such. "Killed mercilessly" could be re-written to "murdered" which would have the same effect while still obtaining an NPOV, provided it is not related to something like a genocide, at which point you hit a whole different ball game. Once the article has been edited, with you both in agreement, feel free to ping me and I can look over the article and provide more recommendations. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ 06:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: @Citobun: So I went to the piece of citation to verify the wording of the article. To preface it first, Apple Daily is a news outlet that is often hyper-critical of Junius Ho. Having said that this is what they wrote: "立法會議員何君堯與大批白衣人握手，更舉拇指及鼓掌稱讚，有白衣人向何君堯稱「你哋係我嘅英雄」" Google translate has it that the preceding phrase meant: Legislator He Junyao shook hands with a large number of people in white. They even raised their thumbs and applauded. Some people in white said to He Junyao, "You are my hero.". Given the abovementioned, I believe that I have a good case that I am not white-washing per se. There are also many other articles from various other news outlet that supports the 'white-shirter' interpretation. Phrasing that they were attackers will undeniably flavour the texts such that it violates a NPOV. I am only interested in rectifying the tone and false/unfounded allegations made against the legislator. Let's not reduce ourselves to populist thinking and gear the article towards the truth and neutrality.Thomaslam1990 (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Thomaslam1990: Thank you for that input. I do not see apple news as a non-biased news source, after I typed this I looked it up and if you read our own article Apple_Daily you will see that it is not acceptable as a source. I am going to have it added to our source list as well. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ 15:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

1. https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20190722/59848508. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Hong Kong articles
• Low-importance Hong Kong articles
• WikiProject Hong Kong articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Hong Kong English