Talk:Murder of Huang Na

Images
Since both the victim and the perpetrator of the murder are deceased, the use of copyrighted images of them might be justified as fair. Something to think about. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some quick Googling turned up two articles in The Star which contain photos of Huang Na and Took Leng How. Huang Na is so kawaii! These photos would certainly enhance the article - a picture is worth a thousand words. But we need an image expert to write the fair-use rationales, tweak the image code and handle all the other dirty work. Haemo, who helped me with the screenshots in my GAs about Jack Neo movies, has been inactive this year - who should we approach instead? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I should be able to help. The pictures look quite small, but after you download them just check that their resolution is 72 dpi. Don't upload them on to the English Wikipedia immediately – let me know by leaving a message here which images you have chosen, and I will prepare the templates. Then you can upload the images together with them. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For Huang Na: this photo from this article
 * For Took Leng How: this photo from this article.
 * I suggest you do the uploading to avoid confusion. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments per IRC
A brief look over the article; just comments, suggestions, and thoughts, all #|IMHO.


 * Would be better with citation tags (user:chzz/help/refs)


 * That would also allow more ref detail - I'd like to see publisher details, etc. For example, one ref says "TODAY" and there are many pubs with that name. External convenience links would be good, too.


 * Dates shouldn't be linked


 * Could add Chinese chars for name with appropriate template


 * Bio's need PERSONDATA, see template:persondata


 * Woodlands is a disambig link


 * Add an infobox, perhaps infobox person?


 * No pictures?


 * Bai jin is a redlink, and I've no idea what it is; perhaps put something in brackets to clarify


 * "China PR" - not sure, and I know this is contentious, but I wonder why this isn't just "China"


 * "seek his fortune" - a direct quote like this requires an immediate reference to source, directly after the quote (even when mid-sentence)


 * "worked illegally as a vegetable packer" - potentially controversial info in a Bio, hence a ref is needed


 * "she divorced him and was given custody of Huang Na" - maybe confusing; I assume SHE got custody, but needs clarification


 * "whom she had lived with for four years, and became pregnant" maybe confusing, suggest "whom she had lived with for four years, and subsequently became pregnant"


 * No 'see also' or 'external links' applicable?

 Chzz  ►  12:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Italics for newspaper titles
WP:MOSTITLE: "Italic type (text like this) is generally used for the following categories of titles: ... Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines) ..." — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Added
I have added an infobox, an External links section, and moved some lines about.--andreasegde (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to improve the article! Some of your changes were very helpful, but some were not. For example, birthdates of minors should not be included and the infobox may be inappropriate since the article is not about the girl, but a murder case involving her (and others). I did a massive temporary rollback so I can go through your changes and restore the helpful ones. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to put on record that i dont agree with The Special ones suggestions on infobox. Infoboxes is not always bad as suggested by many editors. here it gives a picture of huang na, and ofcourse her birthdate should be visible etc etc..--Judo112 (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has no chance of a GA: "the article is not about the girl", and, "a murder case involving her (and others)". Good grief... It's amazing. How blind can one be? I feel sorry for her, but not the turmoil the article is going through. Goodbye.--andreasegde (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodbye and good luck with your editing. I understand I may be harsh, but BLP1E and privacy concerns warrant such caution. Back to GA writing for me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with Hildanknight regarding the infobox. It's true that this article is not about the girl but her murder but it is about her murder and so the infobox is reasonable. As for WP:BLP and privacy issues, these issues are largely mooted by the fact that the girl is no longer living; the "L" in BLP stands for "living" after all. I think the article is improved by the infobox. AFAIK, there is little information in the infobox that is not in the article except perhaps the girl's birthdate. Presumably this information is a matter of public record and, as I said, not an invasion of privacy since the girl is now deceased. More importantly, this whole sorry episode has been marked by edit warring, a lack of collegiality and a lack of civility. Even if you think you're right, it's better to explain why you think you're right than to assert your rightness in a snippy fashion.

--Richard (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to survey a group of articles similar to this one. I will point out that John F. Kennedy assassination has an infobox about the assassination, not about JFK. However, that is arguably because there is an article about JFK with an infobox about him. I am still inclined to have an infobox in this article because I think they improve the look of an article. However, there is possibly some room to argue whether the infobox should be about the girl, the murder or both. --Richard (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Temporary massive rollback"
Hildanknight, without getting into the details of your "temporary massive rollback", I would urge you not to do that kind of thing again on any article as it is disrespectful of other editors' work. You do not own this or any other article. If you disagree with changes, you can revert individual changes on a case-by-case basis subject to collaboration models such as WP:BRD. Wholesale reversion should be reserved for vandalism or other extreme cases of poor editing.

In particular, just because you went on wikibreak does not give you the right to revert back to your preferred version. If you go on wikibreak or even stop watching an article for an extended period of time, you should respect the state of the current article and negotiate any reversions.

Wikipedia would be much less stable if people could go away for weeks or months and then arbitrarily revert the work of editors that has been done in the intervening period.

I don't doubt that some of the changes were harmful and that you had good reason for your reversion. Nonetheless, the better approach would have been to fix the problems that you saw on a case-by-case basis with edit summaries to let people know what the problems were that you were fixing. Even better would have been to document the problems on the Talk Page first and then fix them.

--Richard (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions on dates
While overall a well-written article, I have a couple questions about dates in the section on Took's trial. - Boneyard90 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It says it was a 14-day trial that began on 11 July. Why was he pronounced guilty on 27 August? Is this a mistake, should it be "27 August"?
 * 2) It says Took was executed in October 2006. Can an exact date be added to the article?

Motive for the tragedy?
I believe the perpretrator was mentally ill? Should i add that to the article? Tokyo12489 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)