Talk:Ho Yeow Sun/Archive 1

Pls don't remove claims, add counter-claims instead
Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia-like website. I have edit these "truths" (without factual proofs) as claims. These are claims, not fact. If some people don't agree these claims as true then counter-claim it. Remove some of the full picture is not neutral, not "wikipedic". Cat12zu 13:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Negative information and criticism regarding living persons must be properly attributed. Wikipedia is much stricter about this than it is about most subjects. I am not a fan of Ho Yeow Sun or City Harvest Church. Just pointing this out as many people are unaware of the policy. Kla'quot 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary Info
Removed "Israel's defense minister during the Six-Day War and architect of Camp David Accords." To know more about Moshe Dayan, use it's link.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.2.82 (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
In the article, there is no mentioned of ""loose" lifestyle before she was converted to Christianity" and "it didn't led to a huge furore in Singapore". Furore means raging fury, which did not happen in the country. It says "most of it (BGR) were innocent and innocuous". "However, supporters claimed these as a false accusation." is not true. There are no false accusation here and there are no supporters claiming these are false accusations. These are just incorrect facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.2.82 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

" Another claim was Ho's giving free concerts, with the cooperation of churches overseas in the year 2004, in countries such as Australia" - Unrelated in Criticism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripartite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Invalid References
Please note that URL link of "New Arrival". City Harvest Church." is not valid. Not all pages in direct links are static.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.2.82 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Repeated mentioned of facts
"...Armani dress..." mentioned in Criticism and Controversies section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.2.82 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect facts
I am not sure wikipedian(s) got their facts correct. The last time I checked for eg. "she has had more than 50 boyfriends in her early age" is incorrect, perhaps "..more than 50.." is like wild guess. According to the article, it's 42. I noticed there are outright deletion under the Awards and Performances section much due to the aim to present facts rather than wording it descriptively. Therefore, the same must apply to Criticism and Controversies (esp. tabloid news).


 * Much of this article and other City-Harvest-related articles, at least from what I observed, seemed to be a mere a copy of original works. Therefore, in this article, much of both Awards and Performances section are a mere copy of original works that justified the re-wording of the contents. There seemed to be no outright deletion of both sections. In this case, a short summary of such awards and her achievements (with links to respective websites/media/books) is preferred instead of Wholesale copy of such copyrighted works.
 * In the Criticism section, I'm refering outright deletion as a blanket deletion of few paragraphs (removing whole paragraphs, not part of them or phrases/words) in this section. If you feel that the such statements are not factual then append your counter-statements instead of removing it wholesomely.
 * Cat12zu 12:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"much of both Awards and Performances section are a mere copy of original works" - Please give example. And this has to be apply to the other sections. --Tripartite 15:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

POV warning tag
Edit war seemed between presumably pro-Ho Yeow Sun and the rest of wikipedians. I noticed that some (at least one) pro-Ho wikipedian(s) seemed to made this article more-POV than usual, especially outright deletion of criticism section without constructive explanations/(if necessary) discussions. Therefore, I tag this article. Cat12zu 12:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

NB: Anon user seemed to plagiarize websites' works
Please do not plagiarize other works. Much of the anon user on those CHC-related articles such as CHCSA, Ho Yeow Sun, etc.. seemed to be from websites. --Cat12zu 03:55, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

Please put most recent on top
Pls put most recent on top rather than way bottom. Thanks. --Cat12zu 19:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

POV reason, pls
Sorry I forgot to mention that you need an explaination or reason why you put POV tag. Now the article seemed balanced. For now i removed POV tag. --Cat12zu 19:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Specify newspaper edition (date)
Pls, pls don't revert someone else works wholesomely, unless there is really a good reason eg. vandalism, nonsense. If there's POV bias, put a tag. Pls don't delete legitmate works, merge them instead. It's rude to people who spend time contributing to wikipedia.

Can you specify which newspaper edition (date) mentioned about Ho's interview?

Also pls specify source about the following, so that people can merge this paragraph. Sorry but for now it's source is vague.


 * This was due to a man who claimed to be a City Harvest Church member and wrote to the press about him being solicited to buy CDs. However, it was later discovered he was never a member of the church, and his writings were unfounded. The man published an unreserved apology on the newspapers. There was also no evidence of this as Sun topped the charts mostly in Taiwan, China, Hong Kong and even the United States and UK, where it is not possible to be the work of church members.

Em. You maybe not clear about yourself by disagreeing yourself with "local media sensationalised".

--Cat12zu 00:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If so many good points is also mentioned, why delete 2 negative point about Ho Yeow Sun? The issue discussed is published in local singaporean media, despite restriction imposed by the government, self-censorship and threat of possible charges of libel if deemed found to be a "false news". Both side of views must be represented, but it's seemed bias towards one side & hence POV.

Re: Article POV & Clarification
Ja. I agree. However, what do you mean by "The issue is discussed in local media, despite government restriction"?


 * Cat12zu 01:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I meant that strict norms are imposed by the government regarding the local media, which includes moderation & modesty. Paparazzi-type or those nasty news in taiwan & hk are out-of-bounds in Singapore media. So, in this environment, the "pastor"/"singing pastor" issue discussed in the media are not falsified or even sensationalised. Sorry but I disagree with the word "local media sensationalised". It's not.

Removed a sentence
I have removed this line:


 * In April 2004, Ho was invited to grace the opening of Sun Plaza-a mall named in her honor3, in Medan, Indonesia.

I checked the reference given and it doesn't mention the mall being named after her, therefore making the sentence irrelevant to mention. Hayabusa future 10:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed references to 2 blogs - References to blog undesirable

 * Points with references to a blog site are undesirable
 * Blog sites usually written by an individual or a group tend to have over-unconstructive POV than even one-sided media or discussion, let alone be neutral media/discussions.Cat12zu 06:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Bias or Slant
This article seems to have some subjective material written with a bias. Here are some examples I'd like to highlight: "as well as a top international dance diva currently making waves"

"and frequently offers counseling over radio and magazines in China, Taiwan and Singapore" This implies a humanitarian motive, but what separates it from the likes of Jerry Springer, Oprah etc. where its paid/for-profit. I think this needs to (at the very least) be rephrased or more information added to separate it from other similar shows.

While she is married to the founder of City Harvest Church, there seem to be an over-abundance of links to this organization. The links should be more centric to her and not suggest a deeper affiliation.

Just my opinion! --Nycmstar 14:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

5566 dispute
Regarding the text:
 * Some Chinese artists had disputed the result of her performance, such as Taiwanese band 5566.

What exactly is the dispute? Can someone clarify or reword, and add the references. thanks. --Vsion 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Chart Placement
I reformatted the insane list of chart placements into the discography section. Did not include all from the list though.

Also removed some stuffs under "Other Recognitions". I want to remove the whole section. Grrr!! Dodo bird 18:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal Of Comments related to SUN's albums' sales and awards
I have removed the following sections :

''She is closely linked to the City Harvest Church (CHC). There is much hype about her popularity in Singapore and Taiwan, as her album sales are strongly supported by the mega churches in these area. Much of her album sales are aggressive touted during churches services and majority of her patron purchased her album due to peer pressure and of loyalty to the church (CHC).''

There is much contraversy regarding she should get this award due to the fact that majority of her album sales is brought by her own church.

As stated by Wikipedia, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

These additions are controversial and are sensationalized rather then anything else.

Jing13 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy - Distancing herself from the church ?
The section about SUN's interview with PR.com written by Mark Choo had been removed due to the following reasons :

In Mark Choo's own words she further distanced herself from the church, this is clearly his own personal opinion and not a NPOV.

The whole extract about the interview can be found at. At no point in the interview had she denied anything about the Church.

As such, the statement about Sun Ho that she further distanced herself from the church is controversial and sensationalized. There is no source, no citation or any evidence to point to this fact. To quote from Wikipedia again, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

Jing13 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

SUN as co-founder of City Harvest Community Services Association
The section on SUN as the co-founder of City Harvest Community Services Association had been removed as the reference given is from a web site run by an individual.  This source might not be reliable.

There is no mention that SUN is the co-founder of City Havest Community Services Association in the Community Services Association's web site

Jing13 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF MENTION OF 5566
I have removed "Some Chinese artists disputed the result of her performance, such as Taiwanese band 5566" as there are no reference or whateverso that 5566 did made such a statement.

There is no source, no citation or any evidence to point to this fact. To quote from Wikipedia again, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

Jing13 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Jing13, you're obviously closely involved with CHC and thus interested in guarding her reputation, but you can't just pretend there is no controversy. I've reinserted the undeniable facts that a) she's married to Kong Hee, b) she worked for CHC, c) the red dress caused a controversy and d) she publicly stated that she's not a pastor afterward, with a reference to an AsiaOne (SPH) publication for all of the above. Jpatokal 11:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal

First, I would like to state that I have been editing this article in good faith. As far as possible, I have tried to adhere to Wikipedia’s 3 three content policies.


 * 1) Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * 2) Verifiability
 * 3) No original research

I agree with you about stating in the article about her personal life, in particular to her marriage to Kong Hee

However, I refer to your statement “but you can't just ‘pretend’ there is no controversy”. I am not pretending that there are no controversies. I have posted several posts on this topic in the “Talk” page. Please read.

NPOV says that articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source.

The source which you provided about the red Giorgio Armani is invalid.

And to say that the red dress caused a ‘stir’ does not imply anything. The mention of SUN ‘defending’ herself seems more like tabloid news. Are there statistics or perhaps even a poll to show this? It was specifically mentioned that the group of people are Singaporeans who had previously supported her. These statements are invalid.

To quote from Wikipedia, “NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.”

The statement does not seem to a NPOV and even if the statement does appear in an article, it does seems to be one of a personal opinion. It appears to be  controversial  and  sensationalized .

To quote from you (“remove unencyclopedic stuff”) from your editing of City Harvest Church, can the statement about the red dress be considered an “encyclopedic stuff”? The statements are out of place in an encyclopedia. The readers might not be able to agree as there are no proper sources and citations.

Wikipedia’s policy for ‘Biographies of living persons’ is that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles.

I have edited the article based on this policy as I see the statements as controversial and contentious. Those statements are  inclined to dispute and arguments .

With regards to your removal that SUN has a charting singles in the American dance music circuit, perhaps we can paraphrase it instead of removing it. SUN had released several Singles in the American dance music circuits and had been on the various music charts. It is only right to add that she is not just a Chinese pop music singer, but also has established herself in the American dance music arena. She is widely known as an international pop star.

Last but not least, what is the purpose of your edits? You seem to be coming in as a “slam”

Jing13 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have undone your edit until you can explain why the Singapore Press Holdings news article about the red dress incident, which covers both her position and that of her critics, is "invalid".


 * And the "SUN has a charting singles in the American dance music circuit" is both meaningless and grammatically nonsensical. What single, what chart and when? Jpatokal 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal

'''This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.'''

My purpose in editing the article is to maintain it to be a Neutral point of view. I have edited the article based on this policy as I see the statements as controversial and contentious. Those statements are  inclined to dispute and arguments .

Your mention of the "red dress" is poorly sourced and is controversial. Besides, is your contribution of SUN wearing a "red dress" suitable for an encyclopedia? Its invalid as there are no proper sources and the whole espiode is more like tabloid news. May I know what is the issue of SUN wearing a red dress?

This is expressed in my last post, please read.

As for the "SUN has a charting singles in the American dance music circuit", I have since rephrased the statement.

Jing13 16:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is not the red dress itself, the controversy is whether she can be a pop star and a pastor at the same time. SPH is the largest publisher in Singapore and the controversy was covered in AsiaOne, ChannelNewsAsia  and TODAY , so how can you assert that these are not proper sources? Jpatokal 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal

You mentioned it yourself that it is a piece of controversy news in your last post. As mentioned earlier in my post, it seems to be a tabloid news. So why should we put it up on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia clearly states this right at the top that '''This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.'''

Further more, you have not addressed my concerns about Neutral point of view and that fact that I have edited the article based on this policy as I see the statements as controversial and contentious. Those statements are  inclined to dispute and arguments .

If you continue to post back the red dress issue, I would post my concerns in the living persons biographies noticeboard

Jing13 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading the above discussion and going through the references, I feel that the concerned text should be included in the article because of the following reasons:
 * The material is well-sourced, and therefore does not violate WP:BLP which is primarily concerned with unsourced material.
 * CNA, Today etc. are considered as reliable journalistic sources, and not as tabloids. Please provide reason if you think these reports are untrue.
 * Citing news reports on "controversy" is not controversial.
 * The concerned text adheres to NPOV policy, because it presents Ho's response. Try to clarify the text if needed, rather than removing it entirely. In fact, removing the text appears to be violating NPOV.
 * To be fair, the controversy seems to be a past incident, as Ho has clarified her position in the Church. But since it was widely reported, it deserved a mention in this biography. Usually, in wikipedia articles, such isolated incidents are described in a not-so-prominent section at the end of the article under a "controversy" heading, but this section was removed from the article earlier for unknown reasons. Do consider restoring this section. --Vsion 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Tripartite007 appears out of thin air today and has been doing extremely Jing13-ian edits to the article, including the silent nuking of the controversy section. I've used up my WP:3RR for the day though... Jpatokal 14:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." I added more specifics and tidy it abit. Does this meet the standards? Tripartite007 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did you delete controversy section twice? Jpatokal 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous (defamatory). Tripartite007 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As Vsion states above, citing news reports on controversy is not controversial, both points of view are covered and the content is well sourced. Please explain what is wrong with Today, CNA and AsiaOne. Jpatokal 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A news editor POV does not mean that its factual or proof relevant. If you read at the way Jeanine Tan wrote that article in Today in comparison with the news article written by Janice Lee. Obviously, the former is trying to defame. In what sense citing a controversy news is not controversy? Citing a tabloid news is not tabloid? Moreover, Ho and the church already stated her fact and position. Tripartite007 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Before anyone go on any further in editing this article, can we first be sure of this policy below?

Before putting up on a "Controversy" section, can we first come to an agreement that we are not violating this policy?

77mark 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this line by line.


 * Sun's role as "singing pastor" at the City Harvest Church and her use of revealing clothing, particularly the red Giorgio Armani gown with a "plunging neckline"[2] that she wore to the Hollywood Film Festival, have caused controversy in Singapore[1].


 * Fact: The gown has been described as having a "plunging neckline" by CNA.
 * Fact: According to CNA, Today and AsiaOne, the gown caused a controversy.


 * After the concert, she claimed in her defense that "I'm not a pastor. I don't preach"[1], despite being described as "First Deputy Senior Pastor" on the church's website[3].


 * Fact: Her words are sourced word-for-word directly from AsiaOne.
 * Fact: Her position was published on the church's official website, which is archived on archive.org.


 * She has since positioned herself as a secular pop singer, stating in a 2007 interview that "I'm not trying to preach"[4].


 * Fact: Another word-for-word quote from Today.

So as far as I can see, every single assertion made in that paragraph is sourced and we are thus following the policy. So what, exactly, are you objecting to? Jpatokal 03:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The source at Web Archive is as of April 2004 and is outdated.

IMO 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The controversy happened in 2003, and the Archive page is from 2004, so it was current at the time. As the article states, she has now dissociated herself from the church. Jpatokal 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

After several attempts to post your contribution with regards to the "Controversy", you seem rather aggressive. What are your intentions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.74.49 (talk)


 * Writing an encyclopedia. What are yours? Jpatokal 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No one can prove whether did she disassociate herself from the Church or if she’s a pastor then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.74.49 (talk)


 * The website, before the controversy, says under its Staff page that she is a pastor. She is interviewed by CNA after the controversy and says that she is not a pastor.  If that's not disassociation, I don't know what is. Jpatokal 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I emphasize that even though an editor might be biased and not offer a NPOV. We should look at the topic itself and ascertain whether it is of controversial nature and sensationalized material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.74.49 (talk)


 * As Vsion and I have stated half a dozen times on this page, the text that you are repeatedly deleting is not controversial. It's well referenced and Sun Ho's view and opposing views, and is thus less biased than your version, which pretends the whole event never occurred.


 * At any rate, I've requested feedback from Requests for comment/Biographies. Will you stop reverting if they agree that the section is not in violation of WP:BLP? Jpatokal 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed someone added "citation needed" for some points which are not necessary. Pls proved otherwise if you have a different POV. (Eg. proved otherwise Ho is not). And someone also asked for citations for her carreer years. What is the POV for it? Can we put the so called "Controversy" until there is an agreement from Wikipedia? From the tone of Jpatokal, he is not writting an encyclopedia, its more like writing a sensationalized news. Oceanicwave 11:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything in a biography, "good" or "bad", should be sourced. See WP:BLP. Jpatokal 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not put in the "Controversy" until all of us have reached an agreement from Requests for comment/Biographies.

IMO 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal, Would you be able to check your email account (the one at @iki.fi). Thanks, 203.127.74.49 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I would not be able to. Keep any discussion public. Jpatokal 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be objective! User Jpatokal is writting in a bias tone in "Controversy" section. [See in detail]:

Sun's role as "singing pastor" at the City Harvest Church and her use of revealing clothing, particularly the red Giorgio Armani gown with a "plunging neckline"[2] that she wore to the Hollywood Film Festival, have caused controversy in Singapore[1]. Oceanicwave 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

After the concert, she [claimed in her defense] - user's POV.
 * Fair enough, wording changed. Better? Jpatokal 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

that "I'm not a pastor. I don't preach"[1], [despite being described as "First Deputy Senior Pastor" on the church's website] - invalid source Oceanicwave 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The incident happened in 2003, and the source is the church's own website in 2003. Why is this "invalid"? Jpatokal 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[She has since positioned herself as a secular pop singer] - user's POV. [stating in a 2007 interview that "I'm not trying to preach"]. - wrong source Oceanicwave 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is that POV, and what on earth is a "wrong source"? The sources make it quite clear that she is not linked to the church. Jpatokal 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User Jpatokal is not in the frame of replying or responding to some questions asked by other contributors.
 * What questions? Please note that I will refuse to answer anything regarding myself or my alleged motives, I'm concentrating on the article here. Jpatokal 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User Jpatokal or someone is asking for citations which are not neccessary and not asking why its needed. Oceanicwave 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a problem finding citations for these items? --Vsion 14:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no problems finding citations for these. But is it necessary? (eg. need to prove someone has done humanitarian work? ) There are a few may not be available online. Oceanicwave 15:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a direct quote from WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. So no source &rarr; out it goes. We're being nice by just tagging them with Fact instead of following the letter of the policy. Jpatokal 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So it means someone need to be challenged whether he/she has done:

humanitarian work? worked as a counselor?

I can give you alot of examples in Wikipedia that its not the case. Oceanicwave 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please read the policy again until you understand it. Jpatokal 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont see the reason why user Jpatokal do not want engage this privately since the disputes has not reached a conclusion. It doesn't put anyone in good light. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes) Tripartite007 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We're discussing the content of this article, so this discussion belongs on this talk page. Period. Jpatokal


 * User Jpatokal motives are quite obvious. Not good. 218.186.8.11 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do tell. Jpatokal 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and protection
So, this page has now been fully protected due to this ridiculous little edit war (on The Wrong Version, of course, but them's the breaks).

I'd like to see if there is a way out of this, although it's not looking very good. To date, we have User:Jpatokal, User:Vsion and User:Chuck Sirloin holding the opinion that the Controversy section is valid as is, while User:Tripartite007, User:Oceanicwave and User:Jing13, who may or may not be the same person, oppose this.

I would like to ask you three the following questions:
 * Which specific assertions in the "Controversy" section do you oppose?
 * Do you oppose them because they are not properly sourced, or for some other reason?
 * Would you support the section if the assertions were differently worded or better sourced?

Please answer below. Jpatokal 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As user Jing13 has previously quoted from Wikipedia, “NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All EDITORS and all SOURCES can have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.” - which is a tendency to think disfavorably of something.


 * The statement doesnt mean it has a NPOV even if does appear in an article.


 * "Thinking disfavorably" are your words, not the policy. Of course all sources have biases -- Ho's own site, for example, is biased in favor of her.  By citing only sources with a positive bias, you are biasing the whole article. Jpatokal 07:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "predilection" is the word used in the policy. Check it out. This is an encyclopedia. Anything negative about a living person, we have to be REALLY careful here.

Tripartite007 10:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So: Do you really consider your insertion be considered an “encyclopedic stuff”?

You're Singaporean, right? Do you remember when this hit the news? It was a fairly major event, so yes, it is encyclopedic. Again, the issue is that a senior pastor and the wife of Singapore's biggest church was seen by many to be behaving disrespectfully, with allegations of abusing her position, and then denying her position in the church despite clear evidence otherwise. (The POV term for this is "lying".) Jpatokal 07:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairly major? Base on what measurement you are using? Not major for me and for ppl i know. To you maybe.

You said "behaving disrespectfully"? This is your POV. You said "abusing her position" This is your POV. Tripartite007 10:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no POV on this issue. The sources I am quoting have POVs.  Do you understand the difference? Jpatokal 12:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Therefore, dont present it if the sources are bias, contentious and sensationalized. Tripartite007 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are using 1 source that is no longer valid. So are is it still consider PROPER?


 * I still don't understand your objection here. The point is that Ho was listed a pastor on the site when the incident happened, and the site is proof of this.  Is it "no longer valid" to say that Bill Clinton was president of the USA because whitehouse.gov now says that the president is George Bush? Jpatokal 07:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the source you are using as your support (the webarchive?) which you said "The point is that Ho was listed a pastor on the site 'when the incident happened'? Then, Can you verified it a published page? By being archived does not mean its publised at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Understand how webarchive works? Tripartite007 10:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I still don't understand. The web page was published by the church itself, visible to the entire world, and snapshots were taken by archive.org on multiple occasions.  If you look at the history of the page on archive.org, the statement about her being "senior pastor" on the staff list is there for years, and it easily passes the WP:NOR requirement that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source". Jpatokal 12:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know that a web crawler can take snapshots for pages even if its unpublished. So how you know if its published by the church??? Therefore, it cannot be even considered as a published source at all.


 * ... I'm speechless. Jpatokal 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think most readers will consider if its worded in a different way and the tone should not be at a personal level. (NEUTRAL in tone/words). Don't mislead them. Tripartite007 04:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! Please rewrite the section in your own words then. Jpatokal 07:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like i said, is it encyclopedic? Add value? The section is not approved by many. I won't. Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

"This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of NEGATIVE information about living persons." Tripartite007 10:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The story was covered by all major media in Singapore, so yes, it should be included. Jpatokal 12:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Really major media? Please rethink. Or support your personal views. Tripartite007 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The story was reported in Channel NewsAsia, Today, AsiaOne and Straits Times, and that's the definition of English mainstream media for Singapore. What more do you need?! What could be more major on this little red dot? Jpatokal 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely. This is news media. Not all media... And like you said in this little dot, only 1 publisher, all the same. Tripartite007 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you have finally agreed that they are valid sources. Jpatokal 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please dont read in between lines. Not all major media like you said. Only 1 media which is that 1 publisher. So ought not to be in Wiki. Tripartite007 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section. Pls dont be "eager" to add it in, until its be rationalise here.

Tripartite007 04:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, my friend, it's time for you to put up or shut up: please rewrite the section in a way you find acceptable. Jpatokal 12:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is wikipedia, my friend. Not for your tabloid column. Tripartite007 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you accept a Third opinion? That is, we get a neutral third party to comment on this, and we both accept their resolution?  (This means that if they agree with me, you stop deleting, and if they agree with you, I stop re-adding.) Jpatokal 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But it does not mean i or others will not edit it. Tripartite007 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Will you still delete the section, or parts of it, if the third opinion says that they do not violate Wikipedia policy? Jpatokal 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Will have to see how it is being written. I am sure i will edit it though. Tripartite007 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is clearly stated right at the top :

The sections that are in question here does not seem to a NPOV and it does seems to be one of a personal opinion. It appears to be  controversial  and  sensationalized .

And with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, is it neccessary to add those sections in? Does it add  value  to this article?

We are now dealing with a living person's biography. Like what the co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales said, it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity.

Sensitivity, in this case, would mean to exclude statements that are  inclined to dispute, arguments and likely to be challenged .

Jing13 17:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Contributions to articles in Wikipedia should be verifiable and be of a reliable source and avoid statements are highly disputable and likely to be challenged. I feel that those mentioned in the “Controversy” section falls short in this area.

Next, are there secondary sources to support the “claims” in that same section? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It does seems to me that those mentioned are thoughts and views of the editors.

Wikipedia should contain information that have the consensus of experts, and not become a place where personal opinions become facts. In this case, I believe that opinions of SUN etc. should be best left out of the article in Wikipedia.

77mark 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Point by point:


 * 1) The statements are entirely facts (see [[WP:NPOV). There was a controversy.  There are verbatim quotes from Sun taken from mainstream media.  The church itself considered her a pastor.  There is zero room for wiggle here.


 * 2) You are completely misreading WP:OR/WP:NPOV; see WP:OR and WP:NPOV. There is no original research on my (the editor's) part; every statement is directly attributed to published sources.  To quote WP:NPOV, "All editors and all sources have biases ... Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." Jpatokal 10:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 3) See above. WP:NPOV states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions. ... the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources." Jpatokal 10:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)]]


 * "The church itself considered her a pastor. There is zero room for wiggle here.". You don't represent the church. Repeat: please support this with a proper source. Tripartite007 11:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you sneaky little sneaks, you've blocked CHC from archive.org! Unfortunately rewriting history is not that easy: this blog entry  cites a Streats story (Nov. 3, 2003) recording her various titles ("first deputy senior pastor", "vice president", "music pastor"), and this one  has a rebuttal by CHC itself, also published in Streats, which I quote in part:


 * As its music director and a leading counsellor, Ms Ho is affectionately referred to within the congregation by the honorific "pastor". She is also the co-founder of the church and its community services. ...
 * ''Ms Ho is therefore a "pastor" to the City Harvest Church congregation; but to those who employ the narrower meaning of "pastor" as a preacher, she

rightly points out that she is not a "pastor" in that sense.''


 * So there you go. Jpatokal 13:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see you are trying very hard. Read the whole thing again (a blog), it's sensationalized. Tripartite007 14:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I enjoy a challenge. The link above is a blog, yes, but it quotes large verbatim chunks of Streats, an SPH publication, even giving the story names and dates.  In particular, the bits I quote above are from "A Pastor In Broad Sense", by John Lam Leng Hung (secretary) and Chew Eng An (treasurer) for the City Harvest Church Management Board, published in Streats on Nov 5th, 2003. So what's wrong with this source? Jpatokal 14:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too. "A Pastor In Broad Sense" is title which the editor of publisher put it. Not words of John Lam and Chew Eng Han. They didnt write an article. They clearly said "We, on the board of City Harvest Church, greatly regret that such a clear-cut explanation by Ms Ho was completely taken out of context and sensationalised into an unnecessary debate." The editor of the blog got it mixed up. Tripartite007 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? It's a letter, not an article, and it's reproduced unedited in entirety. Jpatokal 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal, what about the fact that the article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard ? Jing13 12:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reported it Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and I await their response with interest. Jpatokal 13:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read through the Controversy paragraph, the discussion, and sources. I will address the proponent as User: Jpatokal and the opponent as User: Jing13 for convenience. Now please take the following into consideration:


 * 1. Jing13, the paragraph is reliably sourced: namely from Channel NewsAsia (CNA) and The Straits Times, which are reputable news sources (I am discounting The New Paper and Today as they are more like tabloids). If the sourced article was something from out of 8 Days or i周刊 (i-Weekly), then those are not reliable sources. The three of you repeatedly quote from WP:BIO WP:BLP that Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The problem with your argument is that despite the material being controversialm, it is sourced, and sourced very well also. So using this argument is not valid.


 * 2. Jing13, you claim that that CNA and The Straits Times is considered only 1 source from Singapore, meaning that such news has only attracted local attention, and hence, not encyclopedic. However, this argument is not entirely accurate either. Although, CNA is based in Singapore and broadcasts to a local audience, its branch, Channel NewsAsia International, has localised versions in Hong Kong, Jakarta and India. Also, CNA Singapore broadcasts to many other countries as well on cable and satellite television, even the US, and that doesn't even include those that use private satellite dishes in their own home. I quote from Channel NewsAsia - It has since grown into a major Asian news broadcaster with programmes telecast to 16.3 million homes and hotels in 20 Asian territories today. That's almost 40 million people there. So, strictly speaking, this news source from your little red dot does have an international audience.


 * You are bringing it to another proportion now. CNA do many forms of media broadcast, we all know. But it's out of context here. Tripartite007 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am just addressing one of the issues that you have brought up. Tripartite. I quote from you: Please dont read in between lines. Not all major media like you said. Only 1 media which is that 1 publisher. So ought not to be in Wiki. Tripartite007 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC) You were saying the CNA was not considered a major media and so the inclusion of the Controversy was not necessary. I am arguing the fact that CNA is a major media, and so the inclusion of this may be necessary. 리지강.wa.au 08:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. Jing13 and Jpatokal, continuing from 2 on a different angle, since CNA is one source in Singapore, it is not significant enough. However, in a conservative country like Singapore and to religions like Christianity, dresses like these are considered not appropriate. Maybe to balance it up, the article could include that point.


 * Considered inappropriate? Tripartite007 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The stem of the problem was that she wore the dress, Singaporeans found it inappropriate that a pastor wore such a dress, she and the church then denied that she was a pastor. That is the controversy, is it not? So, the entire fiasco started because of that dress. Perhaps how I put my point earlier was on the wrong angle. Consider this new paragraph a replacement for 3 then. 리지강.wa.au 08:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. Jing13, you say that A news editor POV does not mean that its factual or proof relevant. This is true. But this can be resolved by presenting the views of those that do not agree with the statements (this is about the pastor issue). For example, the paragraph can say that she acknowledged being a pastor when the church had listed her as one previously, but church ministers have since refuted the claim and say that she had only been a counsellor there. Something like this which shows both sides of the story, and would be a simple combination of both views.


 * Disturbingly, the CHC website has restricted the spiders from crawling the City Harvest Church website, so the public is unable to check if Ho Yeow Sun was indeed listed as a pastor. Assuming that User:Jpatokal was telling the truth about being able to access the site before, then that means somehow, the webmaster of CHC has caught hold of this discussion, and has restricted access to the site archives. This act of censorship is detrimental to the discussion and moreover, casts doubts about leaving the controversy section out.


 * Wikipedia is not about truth, its about verifiablility. Tripartite007 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about truth?? I can't believe you just said that! Then are you just going to paste lies all over Wikipedia? Right near the top of WP:BLP which you have been quoting all this while says We must get the article right. I am disgusted at what you just said. 리지강.wa.au 08:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please dont be. Dont be mistaken as its not just that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Tripartite007 11:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring me to WP:VERIFY? From here we can see Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. User:Jpatokal's source 'is reliable, as it is coming from CNA and The Straits Times. Do you dispute that they are reliable sources? Moreover, the section was cited. The section on quotations does not apply since quotations were not used. Tripartite, please understand the policies of Wikipedia before you use them to defend your stance. So far, all you have been doing is referring me to policies that dispute your arguments, not support them, and this only weakens it further, not strengthen them. 리지강.wa.au 11:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the statements in the Controversy section which Jpatokal is trying to insert. Eg. In court, you cant just say I am telling the truth, it will fall to the ground. And you cant use a piece of sensationalized news from 1 publisher, be it X or Y newspaper. Tripartite007 11:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In court, you can't just say you are telling the truth, but it will be accepted if there are facts to back it up. If you cant just say I am telling the truth, then what is the point of court proceedings? Obviously you need the facts to back it up! In the Controversy section, there are sources to back up the statements made in the paragraph.
 * You say we can't use sensationalised news? Paris Hilton going into prison is sensationalised as well, and at an international level in fact, does that mean we don't put that into her article? No, because there are sources to back up the statements made in the article. This is the same. Jpatokal has a source for every single sentence made in that paragraph.
 * True, it may be one publisher, but do you think America or any other country would be bothered? No. This news was local, so naturally, and quite unfortunately, we had only one source: SPH. Right, so for example, if I take the incident of the man pushing his girlfriend onto the MRT tracks a few months back. That was reported in Singapore, and unlikely in other countries. However, there is a section of it in Wikipedia. It's fact. It's somewhat controversial. It's sourced. It's from one source. No one has disputed it. It's the same thing here. The incident was fact. It was somewhat controversial. The paragraph was sourced. It was from one source. So why are you disputing it?
 * Please don't say it cannot be verified, because it is. Please don't say it is not facts, because they are. Please don't say it has not been sourced, because they are. There is no problem with putting this in. 리지강.wa.au 13:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are making a wrong comparison here. What is so controversial and contentious of the Paris Hilton example? And we are talking about living person biography here. Tripartite007 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was that I was making a comparison between the three articles on the basis that both have controversial issues attached to them. That's all. Yes, it gives the person bad press, and I agree that the paragraph is not exactly NPOV. 'But if we add in additional information, like a counter-claim or a rebuttal, then I'm sure we can find some middle ground. That is the stance I wish to take here. It may be wrong to insert just "bad press" material, but it is equally wrong to completely censor the information. We want to inform the masses, not pretend it did not happen, and not be biased either. Can we all just find some common ground so that we can put this issue to rest? 리지강.wa.au 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds good. Tripartite007 03:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I've rewritten/resourced parts of the article, now including a big whopping quote from CHC on why "pastor" does not mean "pastor".


 * And once we get this settled, it's time for the next can of worms: the allegations that CHC has improperly supported her career! Jpatokal 05:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see you like sensationalized news. But like i said, this is BLP... not your tabloid column. Not so easy. Tripartite007 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the issue of the 4 of you (and the alleged sock-puppetry): User:Jing13, User:Tripartite007, User:Oceanicwave and User:77mark. All of you have only edited this article, and CHC, and nothing else. This leads me, and probably many others, to believe that you have joined Wikipedia only to edit these two articles only. Now, this does not look good on all 4 of you since it seems that you are here only to defend the reputations of Ho Yeow Sun and CHC. This itself certainly violates NPOV because you, as editors, are biased against the controversy. We want to be neutral here at Wikipedia, and you are seeking to close one eye to certain content but allowing all other information to go through. You can use WP:NPOV all you want, but do as you speak. Don't say one thing, and do something else.


 * I cant speak for the rest. As for me, yes, I am only interested to focus on these edits for now. I may contribute on others in the future. Please dont presume. Vice versa. Tripartite007 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tripartite, it's hard for me to believe that the four of you are not one person, or in fact, four accounts controlled by several people interchanging accounts, since the grammar structure of all your entries are worlds apart. Meanwhile, you might also want to divert your attension to the copyright violations as mentioned by Jpatokal below. It certainly affects the entire article, does it not? 리지강.wa.au 08:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think its necessary to do that. Interchanging accounts or four are one... am trying to put my attention to get the rights though. Tripartite007 11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree to leave the Controversy section in, however, include the views of the opposing parties, and perhaps even the views of those that attend the church, to provide a clearer view of the incident. 리지강.wa.au 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Nearly all of the article as it stands today is copied from and. Jing and Tripartite, in the interest of upholding Wikipedia policies like WP:CP, you're going to delete the material in question, right? Jpatokal 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that, according to WP:CP, obtaining retroactive permission requires that the copyright holders (in this case www.heyaosun.com and www.sunmusic-us.com) either:
 * * Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication; or
 * * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.


 * Merely claiming to receive permission is insufficient. Jpatokal 14:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now removed the content in question. Jpatokal 05:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You ought to give them time to reply to you to be fair. In any case, you do not have proof that they did not have the copyright. 203.211.151.43 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not how it works. Both heyaosun.com and sunmusic-us.com state "All rights reserved", which means that they are not compatible with GFDL, and copying them here is a violation of copyright.  The onus is thus on you to prove that permission to distribute them under GFDL has been granted. Jpatokal 07:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal,

I have already requested the web administators @ www.heyaosun.com for the copyright to post the content in Wikipedia and now awaiting for their revert. I am sure they would agree to this.

Please refrain yourself and do not stir things up by deleting the entire section from the article.

Jing13 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you wish, although strictly speaking, this is against WP:CP (which requires immediate blanking). As this issue was reported on June 10, you have until June 17 (seven days) to produce permission in the forms allowed by WP:CP (that is, a notice on the website, or an e-mail from the site maintainers). Jpatokal 08:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jpatokal, I believe you are one who posted the copyright problems in this article. Have you then did this? "If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following to the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_June_12/Articles"


 * &rarr; Copyright_problems/2007_June_10/Articles. Jpatokal 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sent out the email from the webmaster at www.heyaosun.com to the OTRS system

Jing13 09:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have sent it? So you are the webmaster? Jpatokal 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal, the webmaster had replied to my email and CC OTRS. I then sent out a request attaching the reply from the webmaster to OTRS to request the administrators to take a look asap. No, I am not the webmaster. Jing13 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not restore this material unless official validation is received through OTRS. Copyright policy is not negotiable.    And really, would it be that difficult to write this information in a way that doesn't violate copyright?  -- Visviva 13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Visviva,

Are you an administrator?

The page clearly says that "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue." and "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing."

If you are not an adminstrator, please do not remove anything until an administrator steps in.

It is stated clearly that the article is only to be deleted after one week if the copyright status is not clarified. Besides, I have also stated that emails were sent to OTRS

Thank you, Jing13 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are an admin. Jpatokal 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Somebody should police this article to ensure that the controversy section remains and is not deleted. - 202.156.13.3 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article until Sunday, after removing almost all content based on a) WP:CP and b) WP:BLP, specifically the concerns raised on the BLP noticeboard. I'm afraid this has almost certainly resulted in my protecting wrong version, but I hope that this will allow everyone to have the time to cool down and begin working towards a consensus. Best regards, -- Visviva 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of last paragraph under "Controversy"
I have removed the last paragraph under "Controversy" as it seems irrevalent and out of context.

Accordingly to the sources given in the same sections, hasn't this issue been dealt with in 2003? Why was 2007 interview mentioned?


 * To show that she is no longer involved with the church, and the issue is thus settled. Otherwise readers would get the impression that she is still a "pastor" at the church, which is not the case. Jpatokal 10:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal

Hasn't the whole issue been explained and settled when the Church issued the clarification in 2003? I do not think its neccessary to bring in an interview that is done 4 years later.

Jing13 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In 2003, she was still the music director and pastor-but-not-preacher. Now she's not.  This seems like pretty important biographical info to me. Jpatokal 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

The source given by you does not mention anything being a music director or preacher. There is nothing new in the source that was not already mentioned in the previous sources from 2003.

And please dont lift a few words out of the interview and use it out of its context.

The last paragraph is not giving the readers the right impression. She has already declared that she’s not a pastor in 2003. The positioning as a secular pop singer was in year 2003, and not in 2007.

Jing13 14:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ": I've reported it Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and I await their response with interest. Jpatokal 13:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)"

I believed you have seen it. Tripartite007 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am nuetral over the controversy issue, but I must point out that attempts to remove content as "copyright violations", requesting for page protection, and than reinserting content which supports one's personal POV is not exactly an ethical thing to do. If a balanced and nuetral viewpoint cannot be presented, than all should be removed until a fair solution may be sought, as User:Visviva has done before page protection. This is a fair move by Visviva, and I applaud this.

Meanwhile, I am wondering why even a simple Discography needs to be flagged as copyvio when sources can easily be inserted. Attempting to remove this easily sourceable content seems pretty suspect to me.--Huaiwei 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The discography was, in fact, the one section I did not remove as a copyvio.


 * I was also under the impression that all parties to the dispute here, even Tripartite, had consented to the rewritten Controversy section (minus the last sentence). But I'm also OK with Visviva's move, at least we now have a clean slate to work from. Jpatokal 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Kindly explain this reversion than? I fail to see why the discography cannot be restored, which is standard material for articles on musical artists. Irregardless of any consent over any section in the previous state of the said article, its sole inclusion may still not present an adequately in-depth picture to readers, and thus should not be presented in the absence of other relavant and sourced material.--Huaiwei 16:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The discography was first removed by Visviva as "copyvio material", and my edit simply reverted to their version.  I'd be fine with keeping it, but as the article is now protected, we need an admin to undo the change. Jpatokal 17:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ho Yeow Sun's relationship to the church
FYI, here's the church's official opinion:

In response to your query, I would like to inform you that Ms. Ho Yeow Sun was no longer a staff of City Harvest Church since 2003.

Ms. Ho did not serve in the church's Pastoral Department and did not function as a pastor during her tenure. She was the Music Director and a part of the Creative Department, leading songs in many of CHC's weekend services. For a while, Ms. Ho also functioned as a Counselor in the community service arm, an agency that she has personally founded.

Any reference anyone may have made to Ms. Ho as "Pastor" in the past was purely honorific in nature, out of respect for the fact that she was married to Dr. Kong Hee, the founder of CHC.

I hope the above is helpful to you.

Yours sincerely, Rev. Derek Dunn Pastor / Manager- HR, Office & Pastoral Administration Departments

And a second mail:

In response to your additional queries:

1.	Ms. Ho is the founder of City Harvest Community Services, a social welfare organization in Singapore. She was mentioned in the quote you referred to as the "co-founder of the Church" in the sense that she was with her husband Dr. Kong Hee when the latter started it. This again was not an official, salaried position but an honorary reference/title.

2.	As stated previously in my reply, Ms. Ho was the Music Director and worked in CHC's Creative Department. She resigned in 2003 to pursue her singing career. Ms. Ho was not a staff of CHC in 2004. I apologize for any publications or websites that may have caused any confusion to her role as they were then overseen by volunteers in the church. We have since corrected all such discrepancies to present a clearer picture of her status to our members.

3.	As Ms. Ho is no longer residing in Singapore, or attending the functions or activities of CHC, any honorific titles previously ascribed to her were dropped to prevent confusion to our congregation and the public. While we continue to respect her as the wife of our founder, as a non-office bearer and a former staff, Ms. Ho could no longer represent CHC in any official capacity.

4.	Yes, Ms. Ho is still married to Dr. Kong Hee.

5.	As Ms. Ho is neither an office bearer nor staff of CHC, if you require more information on her personal life, you may refer to her website at www.heyaosun.com.

So now we have confirmation from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that she ceased to work at the church in 2003. Jpatokal 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do. No more arguments over this pastor thing, please. P.S. I went to their church services twice, but I'm confused over whether she's a staff of a church in the past, as I saw her name in the weekly circular everytime I went there. Terence 06:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, Rev. Dunn has granted the right to publish the above on Wikipedia. Jpatokal 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of certain section
There has been a person who keeps removing content from this article. I see no reason why he said in the history tab to look at the talk page of this article as there is nothing to substantiate his claims. - Grin Fandango 06:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Ho has ... faced charges" & counsellor at City Harvest Church
I have since removed the statement that "Ho has, in the course of her music profession, faced charges that she dresses inappropriately for a woman of her religious stature, and that she has used her position at the church to sell her albums".

'''We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space''' - Biographies of living persons

There was no mention in the ChannelNews Asia article that she faced charges of any kind in the course of music profession.

Besides, saying that Sun used her position in the Church to sell her albums is like an accusation and there is no source or whatsoever.

As for the part that Sun being a counsellor, we have already seen the letter from City Harvest Church that she was no longer a staff of City Harvest Church.

Jing13 09:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Accusations" in Biographies of living persons
Am I right to say that "being accused" doesnt really mean its a fact, or that it really happened right?

Besides, doesn't Wikipedia require us to be "sensitive" to Biographies? Does this accusations helps to add "meat" to the article? Is it important?

Jing13 10:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a fact that she was accused. Whether she did whatever she is accused of is debatable.  You, however, seem very, very keen on removing any traces of that debate. Jpatokal 19:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

On the other side of the coin, it seems that you have a personal grudge.

Since the topics are debatable, they are also controversial in nature. Such topics should be avoided under the "Policy on Biographies of Living Persons"

Jing13 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right, I have a personal grudge to keep Wikipedia NPOV. I had never heard Ho Yeow Sun's music before I started digging up those references, and in fact I kind of like it.  I do, however, distinctly recall the pastor's-wife-red-dress flap, because it made headlines all over Singapore. Jpatokal 09:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The world is bigger than Singapore Jpatoka. I live in the USA and, despite having briefly worked at CHC in 2001, have never heard any of the allegations listed. They are irrelevant outside Singapore.--TheThankful (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition I agree that User:Jpatoka is approaching the article to push a POV and seems to have a personal axe to grind. --TheThankful (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Local public opinion"
I have since removed the section about "Local Public Opinion".

Public Opinion is fickle and it changes very fast. Is there a need to document it down in Wikipedia? Public opinion is time-sensitive and also not considered as factual.

Besides, how do you measure public opinion? Especially in the case of Sun, where there is no vote or poll to support any claims with regards to her "popularity"? In the Channel NewsAsia Article, the editor made an assumption of what is the Public Opinion. He did not have any results or sources to back him up.

If there is anything concrete about Public Opinion, then it should be the fact that she was actually the 9th “Most Admired Personality in Asia.” This is a poll conducted by Singapore’s morning daily Lianhe Zaobao on September 11, 2002.

Then on September 10, 2003, in a poll conducted by Singapore’s morning daily Lianhe Zaobao, readers voted her the 8th “Most Admired Personality in Asia.”

Once again on August 30, 2004, she came in 3rd in “Most Admired Personality in Asia,” and the “Most Admired Female Personality in Asia.” in a poll conducted by Singapore’s morning daily Lianhe Zaobao.

I believe that the polls conducted by Lianhe Zaobao is a more accurate respresentation of Public Opinion.

Jing13 14:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jing13, you say that a poll conducted by Lianhe Zaobao is accurate, but a Channel NewsAsia report/article is disputable (which was at the centre of the previous discussion). Do you realise they are owned by the same company: Singapore Press Holdings. So do you agree with the reports by SPH? Or are you against it? 리지강.wa.au 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear 리지강.wa.au,

As mentioned previously, my intentions of editing this article is in good faith. And as far as possible, I have tried to adhere to Wikipedia’s policy of #Neutral point of view (NPOV).

I am neither "For" or "Against" news reports from Channel NewsAsia, or Lianhe Zaobao, or any publications from Singapore Press Holdings.

Yes, I did mention in my earlier posts about a report / article from Channel NewsAsia. Please see below for my post on 07:18, 3 June 2007

To quote from Wikipedia, “NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.” 

My point is that "All editors and all sources have biases", and NOT if a particular newspaper or sources is disputable or not.

The newspaper article of Lianhe Zaobao was about the results of the public polls that was conducted for 3 straight years, and NOT the views or opinions of the editor. The

Please bear in mind that the context here is about Public Opinion, I believe then, that the results of a public poll are more accurate then that of an article writen by an editor.

Jing13 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Revisited - Copyrights Has Been Given
The email with the given permissions has been sent to permissions@wikimedia.org.

Will an administrator with access to OTRS tag this article?

Jing13 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This article had beeen tagged under OTRS ticket number 2007073010019265. Please refer to the section at the top.

Jing13 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Live Concerts" and "Television Performances & Broadcasts"
Irrelevant information. Singers are suppose to have concerts and performances. Readers don't need to know how many times she's had a concert or appeared on TV. Mark Choo


 * A biography is an account of events in a person's life. And appearances on major TV shows and concerts are important events.
 * 203.127.74.49 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say I agree with Mark that this is not really encyclopedic. To pick a few random other singer articles for comparison, neither Madonna (entertainer) nor Britney Spears list any individual concerts. Britney's article has a very short list of tours, Madonna doesn't seem to have even that much. Jpatokal 00:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Interview link
Here's an interview with pr.com: http://www.pr.com/article/1053 Pandacomics (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'Accusations' in Biographies
This is the second time that this issue had been brought up here in this discussion.

I have once again removed the statement that "Ho has, in the course of her music profession, faced charges that she dresses inappropriately for a woman of her religious stature, and that she has used her position at the church to sell her albums".

Am I right to say that "being accused" doesnt really mean its a fact, or that it really happened right?

Besides, doesn't Wikipedia require us to be "sensitive" to Biographies? Does this accusations helps to add "meat" to the article? Is it important?

'''We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space''' - Biographies of living persons

There was no mention in the ChannelNews Asia article that she faced charges of any kind in the course of music profession.

Besides, saying that Sun used her position in the Church to sell her albums is like an accusation and there is no source or whatsoever that it did happen.

IMO, These statements are not encyclopedic and should not be included?

Jing13 (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we've been over this before. The present wording does not say "faced charges" (which implies criminal activity), it says "faced accusations", which she has certainly done.  In fact, contrary to what you say, the words that you don't like:


 * Ho has, in the course of her career, faced accusations that she dresses inappropriately for a woman of her religious stature, and that she has used her position at the church to sell her albums.


 * ...are an almost word-for-word paraphrase of the Channel News Asia article's first line:


 * The 37-year-old recording star, who first made the news as the "singing pastor" of City Harvest Church, has in the course of her career weathered accusations that she dresses inappropriately for a Christian woman and that she has used her influence at the church to sell her albums.


 * The statement is thus impeccably sourced and verifiable, so it's in line with WP:BIO. And it's significant because, as the article says, "Ho Yeow Sun can't seem to avoid making headlines" &mdash; in other words, it's been all over the headlines, and on multiple occasions. Jpatokal (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We are now dealing with a living person's biography. Like what the co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales said, it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity.

Sensitivity, in this case, would mean to exclude statements that are  inclined to dispute, arguments and likely to be challenged .

Adding on, to quote from 77mark in his earlier contribution,

''“Contributions to articles in Wikipedia should be verifiable and be of a reliable source and avoid statements are highly disputable and likely to be challenged. I feel that those mentioned in the “Controversy” section falls short in this area.''

''Next, are there secondary sources to support the “claims” in that same section? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It does seems to me that those mentioned are thoughts and views of the editors.'' ''Wikipedia should contain information that have the consensus of experts, and not become a place where personal opinions become facts. In this case, I believe that opinions of SUN etc. should be best left out of the article in Wikipedia”''

Jing13 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no speculation or original thought here. All the factual content in the statement you are objecting to has been printed pretty much verbatim by Channel News Asia, a notable and reliable secondary source, with the two other cited sources backing it up.


 * The consensus is against you on this. Please stop deleting the content, or you will be acting in bad faith and may face sanctions. Jpatokal (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

You mentioned that there are together 3 sources.

1)	An article from Channel NewsAsia dated 28 March 2007 2)	An article from AsiaOne on 2 June 2005 3)	An article from TODAY on 5 November 2003

There is actually only 1 source, with the others quoting from the TODAY article.

It is not multiple sources, and certainly not different sources. All of these articles came from a single publishing source – Singapore Press Holdings. It’s coming from the same source.

The article seems more like a tabloid news. Why should it be on Wikipedia?

NPOV states that '“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All EDITORS and all SOURCES can have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.”'

A statement appearing in an article doesn’t mean it is NPOV.

What proof or what facts are there to state that SUN used her position to sell albums or that a red dress is inappropriate?

The statement that SUN used her position in Church to sell albums is an OPINION, not a fact. The editor made an ASSUMPTION of what is the Public Opinion. He did not have any results or sources to back him up.

I agreed with 77Mark posted earlier: '''Wikipedia should contain information that have the consensus of experts, and not become a place where personal opinions become facts. In this case, I believe that opinions of SUN etc. should be best left out of the article in Wikipedia.'''

Jing13 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not your job or my job to second-guess. CNA, AsiaOne and Today are, by any standard, verifiable and reliable sources.  And, by the way, you are wrong about your assertion: AsiaOne is owned by SPH, but CNA and Today are part of MediaCorp.


 * Now, since you love quoting WP:NPOV, let me quote it back at you (emphases mine):


 * As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".


 * Once again: there is a point of view that Ho Yeow Sun dresses inappropriately and has abused her position. The existence of this point of view is a verifiable fact: we have not just one, but three sources that say so.


 * Got that? Wikipedia is not saying that Ho Yeow Sun dresses inappropriately and has abused her position.  Wikipedia is saying that there are people who think Ho Yeow Sun dresses inappropriately and has abused her position. Jpatokal (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jpatokal, you said that "Wikipedia is saying that there are people who think Ho Yeow Sun dresses inappropriately and has abused her position.". Who are these people? Isn't it just the OPINION of an editor?

Are we putting things in Wikipedia simply because there are one or two person that view things in a particular way?

As mentioned in my previous posts, what proof or facts are there to point that these are the views?

Besides, looking at the date range of these three articles, it does seem that the mentioned three sources are quoting from the first article. I doubt we can consider it as 3 sources.

My take is that these views should not be published here.

Jing13 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If three news articles are simultaneously reporting on the 9/11 attacks, it doesn't necessarily mean they're writing from one source. In case you hadn't viewed the links yet, the "people" are AsiaOne and Channel News Asia. Do we need 100,000 sources to confirm that 100,000 people share this view? No. That's what WP:V is for. If it's verifiable, then it's good to go. I honestly see no problem in identifying criticism of an artist as long as it's not libelous. And by definition, things only count as libel if it's both defamatory and false. Is it defamatory? Debatable. Is it true that she wore not-so-conservative clothing? Yes. Since one of the two conditions are true, by definition it does not count as libel. Sure, we can remove the thing about "forcing the church to buy albums" but the clothing controversy is most definitely true for one reason: you can't hide what you wear. Pandacomics (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the CNA article notes the album thing, so that's sourced as well. And it's not saying "forced", only that the church encourages its members to buy her albums. Jpatokal (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pandacomics,

Its not the "people" of AsiaOne and ChannelNewsAsia. It's just the editor. Was a poll or survey taken to see the views of the public?

Besides, the view of the people or the public is fickle and it changes very fast. Is there a need to document it down in Wikipedia? Views, or rather Public opinion is time-sensitive and also not considered as factual.

In the articles per mentioned, the editor made an assumption of what is the Public Opinion. He did not have any results or sources to back him up.

If there is anything concrete, then it should be the fact that she was actually the 8th “Most Admired Personality in Asia.” This is a poll conducted by Singapore’s morning daily Lianhe Zaobao on September 10, 2003. Once again on August 30, 2004, she came in 3rd in “Most Admired Personality in Asia,” and the “Most Admired Female Personality in Asia.” in a poll conducted by Singapore’s morning daily Lianhe Zaobao.

So, if the views of the people are that Sun dresses inappropriately, would she be one of the most admired personality in Asia?

Based on these 2 points, I do think the statements should be removed.

Jing13 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, based on those two points, you can add another sentence about how she was the 8th Most Admired Personality in Asia. The criticism still exists, and verifiably so. Pandacomics (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pandacomics,

Your opinion is that the criticism does exists. It seems that the existence of this criticism exists is based on the write-up of an editor? As posted earlier, the editor doesn't represent the public opinion.

The 9/11 reporting example is a bad example. The reports from the various sources came with Live footages, interviews etc. The reporting is about something physical and factual

Opinions of people and opinions of today does not reflect the opinion of tomorrow. Opinions are time-sensitive and changes very fast.

I don’t see that the statement does add value to the article; the accuracy is in doubt as opinions are ever-changing. It does not seems to be "encyclopedic" to be included in Wikipedia.

By insisting that such a statement should be included in Wikipedia, it seems to be giving the readers false information.

IF the accusations are indeed of the public opinion, it would be a contradiction that she was also voted to be one of the 'Most Admired Female Personality in Asia' in public poll in the same year. But in this case, the editor's opinion does not represent the public's opinion.

Jing13 (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it, do you? There are some people who like Sun.  There are some people who don't like Sun.  There are some people who think her dresses are fine and the church links are not a problem.  There are some people who think cleavage and thighs are un-Christian and that using one of Singapore's biggest churches to peddle her CDs is not appropriate.


 * You seem to think that one of these opinions is "correct" and the other is "wrong". But no: Wikipedia's job is to report all these opinions. Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

My intention of editing this article is to maintain it to be a Neutral point of view. This is especially important as this belongs to the category of "Biographies of living persons"

As I had mentioned several times in my previous posts, '''Opinions of people and opinions of today does not reflect the opinion of tomorrow. Opinions are time-sensitive and changes very fast.'''

I don’t see that opinions add value to the article; the accuracy is in doubt as opinions are ever-changing. It does not seem to be "encyclopedic" to be included in Wikipedia.

I am not going in the direction of whose opinion is right or whose opinion is wrong. In the very first place, we should only include facts and statements which are NPOV in the article. There will always be an opposite to every opinion, and I don’t think it’s necessary to include opinions in an encyclopedia.

Lastly, I removed the statements as they are controversial and contentious. They are inclined to dispute and arguments.

Jing13 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Now stop removing the section. Jpatokal (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

Wikipedia states that "Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge."

I do not think that the statments involved in our discussion has the consensus of experts.

Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions, and we should not impose the opinion of an editor on them.

Jing13 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right &mdash; and you are trying to impose your view that Ho is a little angel, and delete all opposing views.


 * Now stop removing the section. If you disagree with this, I am open to having the issue moderated in any Wikipedia forum of your choice, if and only if you agree to abide by the result. That is, if they think you're wrong, you and your anonymous IP buddies stop deleting the section.  (And, of course, if they side with you, I'll stop as well.)  Deal or no deal? Jpatokal (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

As mentioned on several occasions, I am trying to edit this article to maintain it to be a Neutral point of view. This is especially important as this belongs to the category of "Biographies of living persons"

May I know exactly where in the article is it trying to impose the view that Sun is a little angel? If such a statement exists, you may tag it with a POV tag.

You had already discussed about this issue in the Notice board in the past at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=139827146#Ho_Yeow_Sun

And it was “resolved” with 2 comments from the neutral parties.

What is the purpose of your edits?

Jing13 (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be absolutely delighted to raise this again on WP:BLP Noticeboard, if and only if you agree to abide by the result. That is, if they think you're wrong, you and your anonymous IP buddies stop deleting the section. (And, of course, if they side with you, I'll stop as well.)  Deal or no deal? Jpatokal (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

We had a similar discussion last year on 9 June. You gave your word that you will stop re-adding this particular section if the neutral third party agree with me on the WP:BLP Noticeboard.

Why post the same thing again on the Noticeboard? And the same section on this particular article for that matter?

Jing13 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper archives
I’m a member of WP:FACT & it’s my duty to verify & edit if necessary any POV statement to ensure WP:NPOV as per Wikipedia policies & guidelines. As online references may be offline anytime, I’ve replaced the affected dead links with a citation update culled from reliable third party sources based on an earlier verification checks on Feb 16. I’ve reproduced the full newspaper extracts below for the benefit of those who have no access to such newspaper archives (such as Factiva, ST Archives etc) or wanted to verify its content in detail. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)



Despite the numerous debates & mentioned sources that were widely reported, verified & reproduced. I'm greatly amused by the antics of the deletist camp ever since the article inception by an anonymous editor (a StarHub user) on 20 May 2005.

Like other active members of WP:Fact who work tirelessly to verify & edit for POV or NOR during our patrols in Wikipedia, it's an insult to the community when this deletist camp claims to remove certain content on the pretext on Verifiability or "being unencyclopedic", when their tone of edit & edit history highlight their particular interest & involvement on this article and City Harvest Church-related articles only.

As for biographies of living persons, any fact, whether it is controversial or not, can be included as long as it's well sourced & verified. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Ask yourself why the following 'controversial' sections or articles were created in Wikipedia & remained intact to this day:


 * Rachel_Marsden (Case involving our Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales. The case was widely reported including in The Straits Times dated March 6. No exception or special treatment was given in Jimbo's case too)
 * Edison_chen
 * Edison_Chen_photo_scandal (The coverage of the scandal resulted in this article being created separately & updated regularly by WikiProject Hong Kong)
 * Michael_jackson
 * Paris_hilton

Once an article is created, one has no right to control its content, and any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article or was removed previously, it will probably find its way there eventually. Based on my past experiences on such cases, listed below are some of the possible outcomes that I've encountered so far:


 * Nominating this article & all its related articles for deletion.
 * Community action taken on the responsible editors/IPs to be blocked permanently.
 * Nominating & promoting this article to Lamest_edit_wars
 * Issue escalated out of hand into the SG Forums, STOMP or blogspace that may be picked up by the press subsequently, which no doubt will become another controversy to be added in Wikipedia later. See similar recent case: Odex's actions against file-sharing. It created a backlash that was widely reported in the press, the online forums & was even featured in 'Did You Know' on 20 Aug 2007.
 * Further embarrassment for the individuals and groups (including their advocates) who were being promoted as a result of any of the abovementioned actions.

Lastly, I would like to urge the affected parties to think carefully & the consequences mentioned above, by asking yourself honestly whether your intention is advancing the aims of Wikipedia in the long run, or advancing outside interests before you hit the revert button again. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

City Harvest Church
Jing13, in the interest of preventing a Conflict of interest, can you state your association, if any, with the City Harvest Church? Jpatokal (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

In Wikipedia, conflict of interest is “adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests.” (as seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F)

I am not part of Sun Ho’s family, neither am I part of her recoding company, associates or business.

I was invited to one of Sun Ho’s concerts a couple of years back, and I has been following her Albums and Singles etc since. So I guess you can say that I am one of her fans?

As mentioned previously, my intentions of editing this article is in good faith. I noticed that Sun’s biography has not been updated for close to a year, and I thought I would contribute.

Jing13 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that you did not answer my question. Can you state your association, if any, with the City Harvest Church? Jpatokal (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

As the article is about Sun Ho, I stated my stand and the fact that I had no conflict of interests pertaining to this article in my previous post.

The article does not seem to seek to advance outside interests, and the article is neutral and reliably sourced.

More importantly, On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, Wikipedia states the editor of the material is irreverent as long as the policies of Wikipedia are adhered to.

Is City Harvest Church in the context of this living biography or does it play a part in Sun Ho’s article?

Are there in any ways that the article of Sun Ho violated the policies of Wikipedia?

May I also ask if you are related to CHC or Sun Ho in this case since you are editing it?

Jing13 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As the church's self-described "co-founder", Sun Ho is obviously directly connected to the church. So, for the third time, can you state your association, if any, with the City Harvest Church?


 * You may ask, and for the record, I have no relation or connection of any kind to either Sun Ho or CHC. Jpatokal (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jpatokal,

I remembered reading from your edits a few days ago in reference to an official email from City Harvest Church (CHC). You had posted the same email in the Discussion page I believe?

The official email from CHC states that Sun Ho had resigned in 2003 to pursue her singing career and Sun Ho, as a non-office bearer and a former staff, can no longer represent CHC in any official capacity.

How then, is Sun Ho still directly connected to City Harvest Church?

And you had not replied my question that in what ways had the article of Sun Ho violated the policies of Wikipedia?

The article does not seem to seek to advance outside interests, and the article is neutral and reliably sourced.

More importantly, On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, Wikipedia states the editor of the material is irreverent as long as the policies of Wikipedia are adhered to.

I don’t see the need to answer simply because you posed the question. Besides, Wikipedia protect users from COI allegations and accusers can be blocked or banned.

Jing13 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not alleging anything, I'm asking you a question, and I find it very curious that you're unwilling to reply. As I'm sure you are aware, you have been warned on multiple occasions for vandalism, edit warring and COI, plus banned once for sockpuppetry for your edits to CHC, Ho Yeow Sun, etc, so you have a clear track record of not adhering to Wikipedia policies. Jpatokal (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pssst, move this to Jing13's talk page. "This talk page is about the Ho Yeow Sun article", in case that point had momentarily been forgotten. Pandacomics (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)