Talk:Adrian David Cheok/Archive 1

Bias
I am a journalist at a major newspaper in Malaysia. I do not know the subject Adrian David Cheok personally, but as a journalist I do know he is a very well known scientist with many achievements and accolades. If the original author's believe he should have a page in Wikipedia (and I am not saying he should have a page in Wikipedia), then they should show in a fair way the positive and negative facts. The way this article was first written shows to me, as a professional journalist, that they had malicious intent to slur his name and slur his reputation, which I think in many countries would be prosecuted as libel. In any case, either delete the page if the subject is not of interest to Wikipedia readers (his scientific work is rather in an area which is not readily known by the general public, it is not something like mathematics or physics), OR present it FAIRLY and in a unbiased way. I have added facts which I believe the original authors deliberately left out in order to paint a very negative picture of the subject, who is a living person and therefore we must follow Wikipedia rules and not write potential libel.

I notice one of the main editors of this page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bilby User:Bilby - on his page it states he is an academic in Information Science and also he is based in Adelaide (the home town of the subject Adrian David Cheok. I suspect there is some kind of malicious academic rivalry or jealousy leading this use to make biased statements about the subject Adrian David Cheok. A Wikipedia page should state the facts and not deliberately leave out facts to make negative perceptions of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.123.191.11 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The Queen
I agree with the previous contributor that the full title of The Queen must be given. Most readers will not be in Australia and even more not realize that the Queen of Australia is the same Queen Elizabeth, and the Governor General is of Australia as a whole (and not like Governor's of states like in USA), therefore this should be very clear as to whom the letter was written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC) — Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of NewStraitsTimesJournalist (talk • contribs).

Neutral point of view
I agree that there was not a neutral point of view in the early stages of this article. It seemed quite clear that the negative aspects of this living person were put up without the other facts. Therefore by giving a focus only on negative parts, this does not allow an impartial reading. Most Wikipedia readers are not going to investigate and read the references. Therefore we must make the article fair and unbiased, especially this is a loving person. I think as of today with many good contributors, the article looks much more balanced and fair and unbiassed so a good job to the recent editors.

As for the close connection with the subject, I see no evidence of the close connection. The only thing is I see a journalist who said he/she does not know the subject personally but knows of him. I don't think that is a close connection. Everyone knows about people through the news, etc. even if they don't know them personally. Therefore I see no evidence of close connection so I think this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of NewStraitsTimesJournalist (talk • contribs).


 * Checking the page history, the conflict of interest tag was originally added in response to these edits from and the IP they used earlier on this talk page, which added unsourced hyperbole about Cheok being "the world's first" at something, listed his connections to a lot of non-notable universities, and misrepresented his awards, including talking up his h-index as if this was awarded on merit. Some of this remains in the article and still needs addressing. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are my deeply considered views: 1. We should not assume guilty until proven innocent, we should assume innocence until proven guilty. The journalist from the New Straits Times clearly says she has no relation to Adrian David Cheok 2. He/She says she is in Malaysia. I have friends and colleagues from Asia and I find their English is much more honorific and polite in general. I think there was no malice in her language. In any case it has all been basically edited to the nth degree already so the journalists sentence is now much more "flat" 3. I agree with the journalist and I think we all should that the original article seems to emphasize the negative points about the subject. I am not accusing anything, but I would also agree in the negativity of the original article. I also wonder what was the intent to publish this article in May 2020 in the middle of a massive pandemic. What was the interest in an obscure academic in an obscure subject? It just makes me really wonder what was the original intent that this article was put up. Also looking at some historical web pages, I notice this subject had a Wikipedia page a few years ago which was taken down. It seems that the subject has a lot of enemies as well as friends because the previous page also had an edit war. 4. I think the article has been greatly improved by all the recent editors and I think now we have reached a pretty good steady state. I think we can safely remove the tag about close relationship. Let's move onto more important topics and people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of NewStraitsTimesJournalist (talk • contribs).

Academic
The only work described in the sources that he used with his female student was the remote kissing gadget Kissenger. It has never been described by the inventors Cheok & Zhang as anything sexual, in fact on the videos which I watched all the examples they give are family interactions (grandmother, grandchild etc.). The complaint is only about one female student which is the actual co-inventor Emma Yann Zhang who is Cheok's PhD student, as given in the references and citation of academic works. We should not go into dangerous territory of potential libel and implication of some kind of sexual misconduct without a thorough and proper citation from reputable source. The way the sentence that was written may be viewed as potentially implying sexual misconduct which there is no evidence of. We must be extremely careful about what we write about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) 06:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of NewStraitsTimesJournalist (talk • contribs).


 * The source cited talks in the plural of both inventions and students: Cheok also presented a video where he demonstrated a range of cyber sexual inventions with young female students. You can watch the video here. When delegates raised concerns over issues of academic ethics and consent, Lawley said Cheok's attitude was "if the students don't like it, they can go work in somebody else's lab". --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect this news source is wrong, I am from Australia and Channel 7 isn't exactly the BBC, far from it, but that is not for us to check on Wikipedia, so User:Lord Belbury has a valid point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.123.191.246 (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Institute
You fools are removing exactly the parts of this article that Cheok wants! By the way Lord And Bilby are totally haters of Cheok so this whole unbiased article is a total farce. It's all libel and hate against Cheok. 2001:8003:A082:EC01:455A:6A9B:9A11:FA0A (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)