Talk:Calvin Cheng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Yee[edit]

User:Anachronist I think you were a bit hasty in this diff. The Independent ref says:

Judge Cole commented on Yee’s convictions in Singapore and said: “Though Yee’s prosecutions may have been legal under Singapore law, they clearly served a ‘nefarious purpose.”

He also noted: “… other people who made disparaging comments about religions, but who were not similarly critical of the Singapore regime avoided prosecution. These included Calvin Cheng and Jason Neo… Both made comments critical of Islam, equating Muslims to terrorists. Neither was charged.”

which is followed by a longer quote about PAP and how it ... manages freedom of speech and sedition issues. The content preceding that also contains references to Cheng with respect to Yee's response to him. There is a source or two that doesn't mention Cheng but are needed to tell this piece of the story as concisely as possible, yet completely. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Jytdog, I was about to start a section here but you did it first.
I removed that content for three reasons: one of the references made no mention of Cheng at all, the other reference gave only a trivial mention to Cheng, and the paragraph seemed unduly weighted toward another biography.
After you reverted me, I tried to tighten up the prose a bit while retaining all the content you restored.
Reading over that paragraph, half of it is all about Amos Yee. That half is only tangentially about Cheng. Because this is a bio of Cheng, that paragraph strikes me as highly WP:UNDUE weight about another subject that is already covered quite thoroughly in the Amos Yee article.
The other thing that bothers me about this paragraph is the WP:POINTY nature of it. Reading it, it smells to me like Amos Yee is mentioned here just to make an underhanded point about the uneven application of laws in Singapore. That's certainly a valid point to be made, but not in the context of this biography. If there were sources saying that Chen influenced law enforcement to treat him and Yee differently, maybe it would be appropriate to include, but such sources don't exist, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for being clear about all your objections. One of the major points of contention in this article ever since Cheng got involved with politics, has been how to deal with his online behavior here in this article. It is very clear that his alignment with PAP is what makes it possible for him to do things like cyberbully a professor, and talk about killing the babies of terrorists and get nothing more than a verbal chiding, while others are shut down, investigated and even jailed and found guilty of crimes.
To the extent this is going to be a WP article and not just promotion for him (and it has been under severe promotional pressure from a series of socks and IP editors for ten years now) we need to deal with that stuff.
It comes to its apogee in the Yee case where a US judge commented on the situation in Singapore with Cheng in particular, including Yee's interaction with Cheng. As has been discussed elsewhere, sourcing this stuff is rough due to the nature of the media in Singapore, and due to Cheng being a medium sized fish in that small pond so not getting much coverage in sources outside Singapore.
So that is why it is here. I would be fine if you could find a way to condense it further. I made it as concise as I could. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I had tried to condense it further, but you reverted me. Face-smile.svg I thought it was enough just to leave one sentence about Yee's response to Cheng, and not go into details about his asylum case. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
There's another thing to consider. Looking at the sources in the article, it appears that Cheng's insensitive comments were about ISIS (specifically killing a child who's pointing a gun at you) and didn't mention Islam. Because he didn't insult a religion, the comments weren't technically illegal. On the other hand, Amos Yee's comments (see Amos Yee#Second offence for hurting religious feelings, arrest and conviction) deliberately named and insulted a religion, which I understand is illegal in Singapore. The US judge was correct in granting Yee asylum because Singapore's restrictions on freedom of expression would require that Yee suffer for his speech. However, the judge's comparison between Yee and Chen seems misinformed, as this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Therefore, I still maintain that mentioning it is irrelevant to this biography. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
If I may weigh in, Cheng's actual Facebook remarks are not about "killing a child pointing a gun at you", but the wiping out of children of terrorists in general.[1]
(interjection) Wrong. We use what the sources say, not random screen shots from some file upload area. The words that got Cheng in trouble were: "If a child is holding a rifle and is about to shoot at you, do you have the right to kill him?" This is documented in the source cited in the article: [2] ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Anachronist, I am very uncomfortable with the line you are taking here to the point where I have not responded. Please be aware that the quote you provided is not in the original post but in his post responding to criticism of his initial post. I have added a ref that includes his original post to help people avoid making this error in the future. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Anachronist, the source you quoted (Today) stated that a "four-lined comment online, which seemingly advocated killing the children of terrorists in case they grow up to take revenge" posted on Nov 17 was the one that got him in trouble. The screenshot I cited was to facilitate my argument as I thought most editors here would know the original FB comment by now. His original facebook comment (responding to a Facebook post made by Devadas Krishnadas) has been taken down, but he has almost reposted his comments in its entirety on his blog,[3] portions of the 4 line comment has been reported by Straits Time[4], The New Paper[5] Today,[6] Channel NewsAsia,[7] Channel 8,[8], and major online news sites such as The Online Citizen [9] and Yahoo. [10]It should be noted he did not apologise for his comments nor recant his statement,[11] but apologised to the MLC for creating controversy online as a member of the board which was supposed to promote 'cyber wellness'.
*The saga with embeds to actual social media posts[12]
I don't think Wikipedians should be spending time explaining a FB saga, and spending so much effort on this guy's page. But I voiced out because I'm concerned with the amount of white-washing here. I will also urge Singapore editors to adhere to BLP guidelines and stick to the bare facts, which speak for themselves, and avoiding biased wording in the actual article that may cause editors and admins such as Anachronist to distrust your arguments. 185.206.225.133 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
White-washing? There are a lot of reliable sources covering Cheng that don't dwell on this Facbook incident and price-fixing incident, yet this article devotes a disproportionate amount of weight to them, particularly in the context of Amos Yee, which is what we're talking about here. Certainly these incidents should be mentioned, but Amos Yee and a US judge's misinformed views about Singaporean law belong in some other article.
And Jytdog, your concerns are valid. In the section above I state that I stand corrected regarding which quotation is under discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It is illegal and a jailable offence in Singapore to incite violence and advocate the killing of the innocent.[13] It is a different charge from Amos Yee, but a more serious one considering Cheng is an adult and a somewhat more respectable public figure. Calvin Cheng has also made inflammatory claims on racial relations previously. He has publicly berated minority Malays for speaking up on systematic racism in the country, blaming the Malay Muslims' complaints for the radicalisation of Muslim youth.[14] The Singaporean media downplays this as he is linked to the establishment, and no media will dare to write that the public prosecution or judiciary give preferential treatment, as they can easily be charged for scandalizing the judiciary. I do not agree the judge is misinformed, both Cheng and Yee engage social media to propagate their non-pc remarks and consider themselves enlightened mavericks (and make interesting points once in a while). The difference is no one takes Yee seriously, but Cheng is often quoted in mainstream media has much more real influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.206.225.133 (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I was following the saga and Cheng did not incite violence. He did not tell people to go kill ISIS children but said they should be killed. And almost all the blogs only showed a screenshot of what he said in the first comment of that thread of discussion selectively but not what he said after he clarified. People are allowed to clarify in a discussion. More importantly, Cheng did not incite anybody in Singapore to kill other people in Singapore. Like the example you gave. If he said that the children of people detained for terrorist charges in Singapore should be killed, I am sure he would have been arrested at least. Also Cheng publicly berated ONE Malay provocateur Alfian Sa’at who himself makes controversial comments. Like saying Malays should not grieve for Lee Kuan Yew because they are only his step children and that Lee Kuan Yew was a racist towards Malays. Alfian regularly claims racism in Singapore and regularly writes inflammatory things about Malays being ill treated in Singapore. Singapore may rank lowly in press freedom and human rights, but her judicial and legal system regularly ranks highly. The World Justice Project ranks Singapore 9th in world and only Asian country in top 10. https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2016. 113.53.228.63 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the Yee article contains a description of the US judge's statement at Yee's asylum hearing, I think it would be best to simply point readers to that, in the "See also" section. For example:
  • * Amos Yee#Life in US: In March 2017, a U.S. immigration judge compared Cheng with blogger and former actor Amos Lee, prosecuted in Singapore for offensive statements.

--Bistropha (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't do that. content needs to be sourced in the article where the content is. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, exactly: I'm proposing that the content about Yee and his asylum case doesn't need to be part of the Cheng article. It's not part of his biography: it's just a matter where someone else talked about him. So I would use the "See also" line to give readers a link to where Cheng is mentioned on the Yee page. --Bistropha (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
for the last time no, Content has to be sourced where it appears. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The proposal is functionally equivalent to articles that provide a brief summary paragraph with a {{main}} link to the primary article above it. We can provide a shorter summary about Yee with a link to the main article. Whether that's appropriate in "See also" I don't know, but I still maintain that this article says way more about Yee than a biography of Cheng needs to say. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, Anachronist. The Yee material here is excessive. In addition, Jytdog's concern about sourcing does not apply, since I am proposing that we take out the Yee material from the Cheng article completely, and instead use a "See also" line. -- Bistropha (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I wonder why you are so allergic to the content about yee, anachronist. we have two contemporaries from singapore who each enjoy writing outrageous things on the internet who just happen to have different political views. but they are not so different in terms of what they do online. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That confirms my view. The Yee material tells us something about Human rights in Singapore and about Yee, but really nothing about Cheng and his life, so it belongs in those two articles, and not in the Cheng article. Also, I object to the personal comment about Anachronist, and I encourage all editors to please be careful to avoid personal remarks (Wikipedia:Civility). --Bistropha (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that what Yee did is clearly criminal in Singapore. There is a very well-known law in Singapore against attacking any religion. Yee is not the first to fall foul of this. But he persistently attacks Islam, Muslims, Christians etc. He has ever only been charged for this crime. Cheng never mentioned any religion in any of his posts. There are plenty of anti Government bloggers in Singapore including many Jytdog and others have used in their sources and they have never been charged nor arrested either. If there is any question about human rights its only whether people should be allowed to criticize and insult religion freely. 43.252.215.166 (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes their outrageous internet behavior is treated differently. No one has disputed that. In any case the content is sourced and relevant here; Yee and Cheng are connected for all time now. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
They are treated differently because a law dating to Singapore’s independence after a series of racial riots that left many dead clearly prohibits some forms of speech. It’s not because of any bias or favouritism 43.252.213.38 (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Exactly so. And here we come full circle, to my original assertion that the way this is presented seems to be for the purpose of making an underhanded point about a different subject that isn't relevant to Cheng's biography, but belongs properly in another article. So a US judge mentions Cheng and Yee in the same breath (almost) and they are "connected for all time." Did this statement by the judge receive any significant coverage in multiple sources that warrants including it in this biography? Or do all we have is a source of questionable reliability trying to make an editorial point? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
IP, the difference in how the outrageous speech acts of Cheng and Yee were treated was central to point 6 in the judge's decision -- not some aside. (decision is here, linked from this OnlineCitizen piece which also has the entire ruling of the appeals judge, who said there was no legal error in the judge's decision.) Court decisions are part of the public record; the decision is never going away. Hence, "for all time". A little dramatic for me to say it that way, but it is not going away. Jytdog (talk)
fwiw, the government of singapore also noted the argument the judge made connecting the two, and argued against it (see here) as the onlinecitizen noted. The Economist also refered to this point in their reporting, noting "Immigration judges often grant asylum with a simple, spoken ruling. This one explained himself over 13 pages. He gave eight reasons why the charges of wounding religious sentiment and obscenity were simply a pretext to suppress Mr Lee’s political views, including the disproportionate prison sentence handed to a young first-time offender, the fact that his first video—and the public response—focused far more on his criticism of Lee Kuan Yew than his “tangential” remarks about Christianity, and Singapore’s failure to prosecute other people who had insulted Islam." Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Correct, the link is because of the different ways both were treated, and also because of Yee's response to Cheng.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Price Fixing[edit]

nothing useful happening here Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“adversely affected the market by increasing commissions due to the modelling agencies at the expense of consumers”

This statement is a misreading of CCS’s reply. It’s the rise in prices that adversely affect the market. The commissions are taken from the models not the consumers. What CCS is trying to say that the ‘nobility’ of the agencies may have increased what the models take, but it affected consumers and they themselves benefited from more commissions even if % stays the same 185.92.26.28 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

fixed Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit by Jytdog in March was far more neutral regarding this incident:

“In 2005, Cheng helped found an association of modeling agencies in Singapore called the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals Singapore (AMIP) to improve standards and professionalism in Singapore's fashion industry and to increase pay for models and their agencies.[8][9] At the time, models in Singapore were paid about $250 for a fashion show while the same work paid $850 in Hong Kong or China.[9] The association succeeded in increasing wages for shows and fashion shoots but in 2011 the members of the association were fined for price fixing.[9]“

The two deleted references are also important :

https://web.archive.org/web/20080308092921/http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,89812,00.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20160416012637/http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130506-420591.html

Historicalchild (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with your POV pushing unless you want the response by CCS to be added back in:

Mr Cheng stated that the intent of the modelling agencies was to raise the rates paid to models. However, the price-fixing agreement increased the prices that customers paid, which also increased the amount of commission due to the modelling agencies. The agencies' actions were found by the Competition Appeal Board to have an appreciable adverse effect on the market.

Price fixing is one of the most serious forms of infringement of competition law, and companies should take proactive steps to ensure that their management and staff understand and comply with the law.[1]

Jane Dawson (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "CCSs reply to Straits Times report on 6 May titled Agencies which ..." Competition Commission of Singapore. 9 May 2013.


What CCS said in the reply was what they said in the decision. They merely repeated it. It’s redundant. And your threatening rude tone is not appreciated. Historicalchild (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope. That's what CCS said in 2013 after his agency was fined for price-fixing in 2011, in response to Cheng who managed to get Straits Times to publish an article claiming that his action was "noble". Jane Dawson (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope. What CCS said in 2013 was to reiterate what they said in the decision. Moreover that edit was not mine but Jytdog’s. Historicalchild (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Since you say CCS reiterate the above, that means it carry due weight for the article and will be added in if you insist on your POV push. Jane Dawson (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead and add it in. I didn’t remove your POV edit. No Singaporean editor did. Jytdog removed it. This alleged POV push was also JYTdog’s edit. Not mine. Historicalchild (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Jane Dawson should really learn from Jytdog. Every editor should. Even if you disagree with him he has done in depth research before he posts. He even managed to dig up Singapore arrest procedures. Unlike Jane Dawson who is just blatantly anti establishment. Her user page says as much and COI is clear. Friends have a COI. But so do enemies. It’s clearly set out in who has COI. Historicalchild (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI edit requests[edit]

Hi! I've been hired by Calvin Cheng to request some updates to this article:

  • Add to "Business career" section, after second paragraph: The World Economic Forum named Cheng a Young Global Leader in 2009.[1]
  • Add to the end of the price fixing paragraph in "Business career" section: Cheng stated in 2013 that he stood by his actions at AMIP. He alleged that the goal of raising prices was achieving higher wages for models.[2]
  • Add to end of "Business career" section: In April 2018, Cheng launched AlphaBit CryptoCurrency Exchange (ABCC), a cryptocurrency exchange in Singapore.[3] Cheng is CEO of the organization.[4]

References

  1. ^ "S'pore 5 on list of young global leaders". The Straits Times. 28 February 2009. Retrieved 23 September 2018.
  2. ^ Heng, Janice (9 May 2013). "Agencies which fixed prices had 'noble goals'". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 16 April 2016. Retrieved 24 September 2018.
  3. ^ Mookerjee, Ishika (13 April 2018). "Ex-Singapore MP launches crypto exchange". Citywire Asia. Retrieved 18 September 2018.
  4. ^ Yonhap (11 September 2018). "Singapore's ABCC crypto exchange to actively tap into S. Korean market". The Korea Herald. Retrieved 18 September 2018.

Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly. I greatly appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

First thing is OK.
Second this is PR and not what WP is for. Please be careful of making edit requests that are just PR.
The sources for the exchange are both churnalism. Is there independent reporting on this? Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
That second bullet has been the subject of some churn in this article, if I recall correctly. I disagree that it's just PR. It's just a quotation from Cheng's point of view, which is fair game to present in a biography about him, as long as it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE; it should be nothing more than a brief sentence in a larger context that should already have secondary sources.
I agree with the sources on the third bullet. While the fact of the organization's existence and Cheng's position in it should be presented in the article, I'd like to see better sources than press releases disguised as journalistic articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The second thing is pure spin. He appealed and it was denied, and we do say this. With regard to the "just for the models thing"-- Cheng has been pushing and PUSHING and PUSHING to get that spin into WP for years now. I am sure that by now journalists just politely say no. Unfortunately WP is open to we have an endless string of IPs and paid editors asking the same thing over and over on behalf of Cheng. It is entirely UNDUE and purely promotional. We too politely say "no". Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I advise MaryGaulke to look for any other record, like from the original appeal or its denial, that presents this viewpoint that he did it "for the models". While I can attest that Straits Times is an excellent newspaper for most purposes, it isn't regarded as a reliable source for topics related to Singapore politics. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • btw for full disclosure here... Cheng reached out to me via email to discuss this page. In the course of that discussion, I offered the names of a few ethical paid editors, Mary among them. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    He had reached out to me also in the past, and I had suggested Mary as well (probably due to an email exchange between you and me). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Anachronist: Hi both! Thanks for weighing in here.

  • For the second bullet, what about including only the first sentence: Cheng stated in 2013 that he stood by his actions at AMIP.[1]
  • There are many other sources for ABCC, but most are niche crypto-focused publications, e.g. [2][3][4], or tangential mentions, e.g. [5].

As I'm sure you both know, I'm not interested in trying to push this through over your judgment, so if the first bullet (Young Global Leader) is all that can be done for now I'll let it rest and advise Mr. Cheng to do the same. Thank you both for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Heng, Janice (9 May 2013). "Agencies which fixed prices had 'noble goals'". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 16 April 2016. Retrieved 24 September 2018.
  2. ^ "Interview With Calvin Cheng CEO Of ABCC". Crypto Daily. 18 September 2018. Retrieved 29 September 2018.
  3. ^ "ABCC, World's First Zero-Trading-Fee Crypto Exchange, to Deliver a Frictionless Experience For Users". CoinJournal. 28 May 2018. Retrieved 29 September 2018.
  4. ^ "AlphaBit Launches Commission Free Exchange". Crypto News Asia. 16 April 2018. Retrieved 29 September 2018.
  5. ^ "Discussing the regulation of cryptocurrencies". CNBC. 6 May 2018. Retrieved 29 September 2018.

Sources for AMIP goal benefitting models[edit]

@MaryGaulke: I have no problem with bullet 3 as long as good sources can be found. I can agree that it's a notable enough fact to be included. It's really just a statement that needs verifying. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. No harm in including it.

As you can surmise from this discussion (and also prior on this talk page), Jytdog and I disagree about bullet 2. I think it should be included, Jytdog doesn't, but I do agree that if we include it, it needs a better source. So I'll point out two more:

  • Dylan Boey (April 1, 2005). "Models Inc - A body of models". The Straits Times, Life section. -- unfortunately this is behind a paywall, but I have a copy. Another Straits Times article, yes, but look at the date. This was in 2005, six years before the investigation in 2011, not an after-the-fact piece. It may be PR, but it isn't spin merely in response to the price fixing fallout. Here are relevant quotes from the article:

    To fight for better terms for models here, the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (AMIP) has been formed. ... The association aims to improve the welfare of models as well as improve the professional and ethical conduct of agencies. Association president Calvin Cheng says ... 'The story was one very good justification for an organisation to improve things in the industry' ... He points out how top Singaporean models like Charmaine Harn are now based overseas because of better prospects. 'They don't even bother to come back for castings,' says Cheng, who is CEO of Looque International, which used to own the Elite Singapore model agency.

    POOR pay is the biggest issue the association is hoping to put right. 'Modelling has ceased to be a profession in Singapore because full-time models cannot survive. The rates are too low,' says Cheng.

  • There's also the text of the 2011 decision itself. I find things in there that suggest the motive of "better pay for models" wasn't just PR spin, it was the established factual purpose of the price fixing. Quotes:
    • Paragraph 54: "According to AMIP President Calvin Cheng, Singapore Fashion Week occurs around the same time as the Hong Kong Fashion Week every year, and since modelling persons would choose to go to the country where the organizers pay better rates"
    • Paragraph 114: "Chuan Do said that the AMIP rates caused an increase in the rates payable to models in Singapore, and has become the common rate applicable today."
    • Paragraph 172: "Calvin Cheng said that AMIP members were not price fixing but had agreed to ask clients to pay AMIP rates. AMIP members succeeded in getting clients to pay more for specified modelling services. ... 'We are telling clients please increase our rates, we are not telling clients we will be increasing our rates.'"
    • Paragraph 225: "In their joint written representations, Bees Work, Diva, Electra, Impact, Linsan, Looque and Quest, argued that the infringing agreement conferred net economic benefits ("NEB") .... They submitted that the object of the agreement between the AMIP members was to 'uplift and upgrade the image and professionalism of the modelling industry' by forming a collective voice to resolve concerns and problems related to the industry, for instance, to collectively counter clients and go after clients who were bad paymasters. It was submitted that the benchmarking of the modelling rates was only part of the AMIP's efforts to improve modelling standards in Singapore and that by raising the modelling rates and price differentials, higher quality and professional models would be attracted to Singapore."
    • Paragraph 260: "Calvin Cheng also expressed concern that a price war may ensue if CCS issues an unfavourable decision towards AMIP or it becomes public that AMIP guidelines were removed. 'Therefore, I urge you to not only exonerate us from anticompetitive practices, but also to endorse what we have done. Do not make us take down our guidelines. We worked very hard to try to make Singapore's modelling industry competitive, to convince clients to pay more, so better talent can come to Singapore.'"

Those excerpts, and many others in that document, are convincing enough evidence to me that the quotation Mary cited from The Straits Times with Cheng saying the goal was to raise wages for models, is more than just PR spin. Improving wages was a deliberate goal of the price fixing scheme to from the beginning. Therefore, I still believe it is relevant to include in the article, perhaps not that specific quote originally proposed, but perhaps something else quoted from the CCS decision to put it in better context. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Anachronist. Maybe something like: According to AMIP, the goal of raising prices was achieving higher wages for models.[1][2] Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Boey, Dylan (1 April 2005). "A body of models". The Straits Times. Retrieved 2 October 2018. (Subscription required (help)). Cite uses deprecated parameter |subscription= (help)
  2. ^ Heng, Janice (9 May 2013). "Agencies which fixed prices had 'noble goals'". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 16 April 2016. Retrieved 24 September 2018.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Even if price fixing led to better pay for models, there is no way to prove that that is the goal. An opinion is not a fact. If Cheng's claim is to be included, then CCS's counter argument below should also be included.

Mr Cheng stated that the intent of the modelling agencies was to raise the rates paid to models. However, the price-fixing agreement increased the prices that customers paid, which also increased the amount of commission due to the modelling agencies. The agencies' actions were found by the Competition Appeal Board to have an appreciable adverse effect on the market.

Price fixing is one of the most serious forms of infringement of competition law, and companies should take proactive steps to ensure that their management and staff understand and comply with the law.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Dawson (talkcontribs) 01:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "CCSs reply to Straits Times report on 6 May titled Agencies which ..." Competition Commission of Singapore. 9 May 2013.

Proposed text[edit]

Including that long quotation would be way over into WP:UNDUE weight territory for one contextual sentence. This isn't about "proof". We have sources quoting Cheng from years before, during, and after the CCS decision that improving wages was the goal. Simply put, Cheng claimed that AMIP's goal was to raise wages, but this "goal" was later found to be price fixing. We have sources for both clauses. Nothing more needs to be said. I suggest two sentences, along the lines of "Cheng claimed that AMIP's objective was to raise wages for models. CCS found that AMIP's practices constituted price fixing, having 'an appreciable adverse effect on the market.'" Anything else is unnecessary detail. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The thing that AMIP of course doesn't talk about, is that when models get paid more, the management (members of AMIP) gets paid more, as noted by Jane Dawson above. I will add to that paragraphs 272-276 on pages 110-112 of the decision which makes it clear that the model fee was paid to the agency by the client, not to the model. "the Parties were not mere intermediaries but are, in fact, the responsible entity for modelling services rendered to clients. CCS notes that the contractual relationship is between the client and modelling agency, and that the client would look to and hold the modelling agency responsible for breach of contract." ..."The modelling agencies sources and builds its own portfolio of models and talents. It offers its portfolio of models and talents as modelling services in order to secure bookings and jobs."
As importantly, the goal of developing the modelling industry in Singapore of course means more business for the management companies. The members of AMIP said this:

We have concluded that:

(1) Prices here are too low to attract top international runway talent. We are losing a lot of talent to Hong Kong and Shanghai whose runway rates can be 2 to 5 times Singapore's.

(2) Prices are too low to attract top regional talent. Models from China, Thailand, Japan, Korea amongst others command more in their home countries, often Third World countries, than in Singapore.

As a result, we are unable to provide high-quality models to the runway shows here in Singapore, which in turn lower the standard of the fashion shows here.

In addition, we are unable to cultivate a good cohort of local runway models as they are not able to obtain a respectable and regular income.

All these factors will hamper Singapore's efforts to be a fashion capital, and prevent Singapore modelling agencies from competing regionally and internationally. (emphasis added) (source = page 140 of the decision, which is a memo from AMIP])

This is why the emphasizing "we did it for the models" is so unacceptable. of course it all starts with model fees -- the model fees are the same as the price of any product for the business owners (with the added tweak that the price is for talent, so high prices mean better talent which means more money for management). Of course they said "it is about the models" from the beginning. Duh. This is business 101.
AMIP members directly benefited from the higher wages and developing the industry, and trying to spin this as pure altruism is utter bullshit. So no. Hell no.
On top of that, Cheng/his agents/whatever have abused Wikipedia's openness and wasted volunteer time for over ten years now. ENOUGH already. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, obviously. That's the whole crux of the dispute between AMIP and CCS. It wouldn't be right to exclude that from this article. We could say something like "CCS concluded that, contrary to AMIP's assertion that their goal was to increase wages for models, AMIP's practice of price-fixing resulted in 'an appreciable and adverse effect on the market.'" That statement puts the whole thing into proper context, it's concise, and the fact that we have multiple sources supporting each clause makes the point notable enough to include. Any problem with that? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I cannot say "no" more clearly. Cheng is a businessman and the business fundamentals benefitting management are simple, to anyone who takes the time to think about this business matter. And the content you are suggesting is bizarre. No one disputed that the models benefitted. No one. The competition committee didn't dispute it -- they ignored it because it is irrelevant. The exact spin here is Cheng's push to say "hey, look over there!" when the actual problem is elsewhere. There is no no way in hell that we will allow this kind of spin in WP. The community will never accept that. You will need to take this to an RfC and hey - it is your reputation to trash if you want to go there. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I might just do that. I never started an RFC before. I'll look into it when I have time.
I honestly don't understand the objection to providing the underlying context of a dispute between AMIP and CCS using a single well-sourced sentence. Yes, no one disputes that the models benefitted, but that isn't the point. The point is that AMIP claimed repeatedly that was their purpose before, during, and after CCS got involved, and CCS concluded "no, that wasn't your real purpose". That's a far cry from "spin". What is the problem with a single sentence explaining that? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
No, the CCS did not say "that was not your real purpose". The CCS looked at the behavior and found that it violated the law and so the CCS forced the companies to pay a penalty based on their profits. The claimed motivation was irrelevant.
Yes I know you don't understand the problem. There is nothing I can do about that other than write what I have already written. The proposal is pure misdirection and what we call UNDUE. I will not respond further. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The motivation would be irrelevant if there was just isolated coverage of it, but that isn't the case here. It would be WP:UNDUE if we included more than one line about it. That you consider it spin or misdirection is irrelevant; what matters according to Wikipedia's content guidelines is coverage, and we have that, before, during by the CCS itself, and afterward. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine, if you insist, we can have it like this: "Despite profiteering from higher agency commissions, Calvin Cheng insisted that the goal of AMIP's price fixing action was to raise wages for the models. The CCS rebuked Cheng, stating that AMIP's practices resulted in customers paying more, adversely impacting the market considerably." Jane Dawson (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If he truly believes in raising model wages, he would have lower his agency commission rate instead of raising price through price-fixing.Jane Dawson (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, that's pretty good. I'd replace some of the loaded words, and fix the awkward-sounding the double adverb at the end. How about: "Despite profiting from higher agency commissions, Calvin Cheng insisted that AMIP's goal was to raise wages for models. The CCS rejected that assertion, stating that AMIP's price-fixing actions resulted in customers paying more, having a considerable adverse impact on the market." We have at least two sources for each sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Jane please provide a quote from CCS where they "rebuked Cheng". Anachronist, please provide a quote where the CCS "rejected that assertion". And for both of you we don't need to say the whole name. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Profiteering means profitting by unfair means, especially illegally. It concisely describes the situation here. No need to water-down. Rebuked means expressing sharp disapproval. The quoted statement from CCS is a rebuke in response to Cheng's argument. I couldn't be more succinct here.Jane Dawson (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I don't see a sharp disapproval in the piece Jane quoted (CCS response to Cheng's statement in Straits Times). Rather it acknowledges the goal and basically says executing on that goal constituted price fixing. "Profiteering" is disparaging and used in the context of "exhorbitant" profits according to my dictionary, which isn't established for this case, and not used in any source I can find ("profiting" is), treading into original research. "Profiting" is concise and precise.

As for "rejected", you're right Jytdog, that isn't quite accurate. I see in the 2011 CCS decision instances of CCS rejecting other assertions (e.g. paragraph 210) but not the assertion that AMIP's goal was to increase wages. The CCS decision document recognizes that goal in paragraph 204 and 213f... the only "rejecting" of that is CCS recognizing that the goal to "command higher model rates" involved price fixing.

OK, how about this: "Despite profiting from higher agency commissions, Cheng insisted that AMIP's goal was to raise wages for models. The CCS judged that AMIP engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing to achieve that goal, resulting in customers paying more, and having a considerable adverse impact on the market." ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own definition, price-fixing is a form of profiteering. AMIP has been found guilty of price-fixing by CCS. I am not aware that stating a fact can be disparaging. The second paragraph of the text which I quote here again "Price fixing is one of the most serious forms of infringement of competition law, and companies should take proactive steps to ensure that their management and staff understand and comply with the law." shows strong disapproval. It shows the CCS means serious business and will use the full force of the law to prevent any price-fixing practices. This statement was made after Cheng got ST to publish his "noble" story. Jane Dawson (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
CCS ignored the protestation of motivation, as should we. The current text is fine. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
We don't use Wikipedia as a source, and in any case the price fixing article makes no mention of profiteering. I'll work the revision into the article if I have time today. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If you add it, I will revert it. It is PROMO and UNDUE and is just a continuation of Cheng's ten year effort to abuse our openness for promotion. The current content is fine as it is. Like many people who work the helpline, you have gone from a neutral helper to an advocate for the article subject. It happens. But if you want to do this, you will need to do an RfC. If you are unsure how, I can help. Just post the content that you want to appear with its sourcing, instead of what is there (or if you want to add something, just state precisely where the sourced content would go). I can then format the RfC neutrally. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, for the misunderstanding, I thought by "current text is fine" you meant my current proposal. Between the three of us, neither Jane nor I seem to have a problem with including the goal if presented in an appropriate context, we're just quibbling over copyedits at this point.
I request that you stop imagining I have motivations that don't exist. I'm not advocating for the subject, I am disagreeing with your interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that this is promotional and undue. That's all. Period. AMIP's purported "goal" happens to be a notable fact in spite of you and Jane AND me having a personal distaste for Cheng's motivation to include it. That "goal" is repeatedly recognized by the CCS and the other sources, and therefore is notable enough for inclusion. Given that, a single mention is far from undue weight. I haven't yet seen a compelling policy-grounded argument against that position, which would basically be arguing against WP:GNG.
The rest of my week is pretty busy. I'll look into setting up an RFC when I have the time. You can start one if you want, but there is no urgency. As for the content to appear, I imagine that would be some combination of Jane's and my recent proposals. I'm actually OK if Jane's version went into the article, although the community would likely consider "profiteering" and "rebuked" as violating WP:BLP and possibly WP:OR. The sourcing is scattered all over this conversation started by Mary, so it will be a bit of work to put together a well-formed proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not describing motivations but rather behavior. Advocacy is advocacy. I do not favor either Jane's proposal (which goes too far into SYN) nor yours (which is advocacy for Cheng, UNDUE and PROMO). There is no encyclopedic value to giving his spin on these events. Describing what happened is sufficient for an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Yes, describing what happened is sufficient. But what happened also includes how AMIP/Cheng publicly presented their motivation over the years. Was it spin? Maybe, but so what? It's a fact that happened, and as long as we attribute it properly and don't state AMIP's goal as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, we've done our job. From my perspective, this as about notability and encyclopedic value. The relevant questions are: Is AMIP's claim of their goal notable enough to mention? Would mentioning it give it undue weight? Would mentioning it be equivalent to promoting a point of view? Those are all valid questions, and we disagree not only about the answers, but also which of our rules and best practices have precedence when they conflict (WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:UNDUE). ~Anachronist (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any conflict in policies here. It can be added because there is an RS for it; the question is should we. This is where editorial judgement comes in. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I have already given my take on the use of the two words. Dictionaries and people may have a wide range of interpretations on the meaning of the same two words. I shall rest my case here. Jane Dawson (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Jane Dawson, Jytdog, and Anachronist: Hi all, been a few weeks. Checking in if I can do anything here to add clarity to this conversation or help us attain a resolution. Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mary. One of the three suggestions was implemented. The sourcing is not good enough for his crypto venture now; we can add that if/when there are independent, good sources for it. (btw, if you are not aware there are now "general sanctions" on cryptocurrency stuff. See WP:GS/Crypto) On the "i did it for the models" thing, there is no consensus for that here. That is clear. If somebody wants to throw an RfC for that, they can. My sense is that an RfC would not get consensus for that change either, but somebody can try. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I think an RFC is worth having because there are fairly good arguments for including AMIP's long-term position that they benefited models, regardless of whether it was spin. However, I'm not inclined to dive into it now. Maybe later. No objection to anyone else making an RFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC: COI edit request re: AMIP lawsuit[edit]

I propose adding some context about motivations to the price fixing paragraph (second-to-last) in the "Business career" section: In the past (see above), there has been some debate about whether this context is sufficiently neutral and notable for inclusion. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC). Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Despite profiting from higher agency commissions,[1] Cheng insisted that AMIP's goal was to raise wages for models.[2][3] The CCS judged that AMIP engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing to achieve that goal, resulting in customers paying more, and having a considerable adverse impact on the market.[4]

Please note I have a COI: I have been paid by Mr. Cheng to submit this request. @Anachronist and Jane Dawson: Pinging you both as you were previously involved in discussions on this issue. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Notice of Infringement Decision issued by CCS: Price-Fixing in Modelling Services". Competition Commission of Singapore. 23 November 2011. pp. 110–112. Archived from the original on 3 July 2017. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
  2. ^ Boey, Dylan (1 April 2005). "A body of models". The Straits Times. Retrieved 2 October 2018.
  3. ^ Heng, Janice (9 May 2013). "Agencies which fixed prices had 'noble goals'". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 16 April 2016. Retrieved 24 September 2018.
  4. ^ "CCSs reply to Straits Times report on 6 May titled Agencies which ..." Competition Commission of Singapore. 9 May 2013. Archived from the original on 3 July 2017. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
  • This information seems ok to me as well and it is relevantly sourced. It should be included.173.167.211.241 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm also in favor of this. The notability of this fact should not be in question as it has been reported in multiple reliable sources. And the fact that the subject of the article wants it mentioned is irrelevant to our editorial guidelines. It's a notable fact, and the context in which it's stated appears sufficiently neutral. I will repeat what I said in the lengthy discussion above: AMIP's purported "goal" of benefiting models happens to be a notable even if Cheng himself has his own motives for wanting to include a statement about it. That "goal" is repeatedly recognized by the CCS and the other sources, and therefore is notable enough for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion Support amended version, but not the current addition The proposed addition is editorialising the issue somewhat, which I am not comfortable with. For example,
  1. Despite profiting from higher agency commissions, is unnecessary editorialising.
  2. Not supported by source. the CCS judged that AMIP engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing to achieve that goal is misrepresenting the CCS judgement and is not supported by a source (CCS never said that AMIP was trying to achieve that goal and in the pursuit of that goal, engaged in anti-competitive behaviour. CCS did not accept the claim that "AMIP's goal was to reduce prices for models". On the contrary, this is what the CCS report says

    CCS finds that the evidence shows that the intent among the Parties was to collectively raise the rates gradually over time, instead of an immediate drastic increase, so as not to attract too much attention or complaints. For instance, in a letter to the AMIP members (which included the Parties), Calvin Cheng, then AMIP President, cautioned : "I am concerned that we will meet a backlash from the industry if we recommend higher rates too drastically ... Not only this, the Competition Act having come into existence... we do not want to fall prey to any accusation that we are price-fixing. The more agitation we create among our clients, the more likely they may band together to lodge a complaint against us".

  • If you really want to add I suggest adding these 3 lines from the actual source which is neutral and state the facts of both parties clearly.
Mr Cheng stated that the intent of the modelling agencies was to raise the rates paid to models. However, the price-fixing agreement increased the prices that customers paid, which also increased the amount of commission due to the modelling agencies. The agencies' actions were found by the Competition Appeal Board to have an appreciable adverse effect on the market.
Based on the previous discussions by User:Jane Dawson, Anachronist and Jytdog I think it would be fair to include, the above quote. Personally, I don't prefer to shorten it, but if it is shortened then for balance we should state the 3 things in order - (1) Cheng states intent was to raise rates paid to models, (2) however price-fixing increased the prices paid by customers, increasing amount of commission to modelling agencies, (3) CCS found this had "an appreciable adverse effect on the market" BukitBintang8888 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
On second thoughts, after going through the entire discussion, I don't think we really need to add this to the article. The article is about Cheng and it focuses on Cheng's role in the price fixing incident. I don't think we need to explain the supposed motivations/explanations ("goal") of AMIP behind the price fixing and how CCS found that it was not true. Neither am I happy with the references (#2 is irrelevant as it is a PR before the incident, #3 is an interview with Cheng and #1,4 are both letters from CCS). Other references don't really include this "goal" for example [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], It's a bunch of WP:COATRACK and undue for this article. Best not to include it.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we have a general consensus here. I'm going to add a passage that takes into account BukitBintang8888's comments. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I disagree with the inclusion (see my second thoughts above, I apologize for not modifying the bold text). The article specifically deals with Cheng's role in the AMIP price fixing ("Cheng played a central role by instructing AMIP members how to mask the collusion to evade detection and complaints"). Cheng appealed was that this was damaging to his character, however the CCS did not allow the appeal because he was not personally fined. This is well explained in this article [21] (I have the full version pdf). I don't see why we need to include tangential information about the fact that AMIP has "noble goals". The article is not about the motivations/guilt of AMIP, but about Cheng's role in it and his subsequent appeal attempt about that.
Additionally, even if we focus on the facts of the AMIP incident, I noticed that most third-party non-interview references which cover the price fixing incident as a whole (including the subsequent appeals), do not even mention "noble goals"/"raising wages for models". For example, [22] makes no mention of it (even though it elaborates on Cheng's appeal). Similarly, [23] says "All five agencies appealed only against the financial penalty imposed and not the infringement decision." From what I understand, it seems like AMIP itself did not use that reason as a counterpoint. Another source [24] states "The agencies had characterised their actions as price guidelines issued by a trade association known as the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (Amip). CCS found that the agencies had fixed prices on a wide variety of modelling services including editorials, fashion shows, and media loading usage. Customers who suffered from this practice included publishers, photographers, show choreographers, event organisers, and fashion labels." [25] states "The CCS found that through the establishment of the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (“AMIP”), the modelling agencies colluded to decide on rates to be charged for modelling services. Contrary to the arguments raised by some of the modelling agencies, the CCS was of the view that the rates implemented by the AMIP were not a result of price recommendations but price-fixing. The parties were found to have compiled and circulated the agreed modelling rates in secret and AMIP members sought to enforce these rates against each other. Such conduct ultimately constitutes price-fixing behaviour". Similarly in [26] "In the course of investigations, the modelling agencies had characterised their actions as price guidelines issued by a trade association known as the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (AMIP). However, CCS found out that the AMIP was essentially a 'front' for its individual members, namely the agencies, to coordinate on and collectively raise rates for modelling services in Singapore.The agencies had fixed rates on a wide variety of modelling services, including editorials, advertorials, fashion shows and media loading usage. Customers who were impacted included publishers, photographers, show choreographers, show organisers and fashion labels...Five of the 11 modelling agencies appealed to the CAB seeking a substantial reduction in financial penalties, but did not dispute that they had infringed the Competition Act". Given that most reports do not even mention "noble goals"/"raising wages for models" as a reason, I don't see why we need to mention it in this article.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of additional information but oppose the proposed wording. The CCS did not "recognize" the defendant's justification for his illegal acts. The CCS accepted the excuse proffered in the same, exact, routine manner it accepts perforce every defendant's statement and nothing more. To argue differently is to engage in misrepresentaion. The excuse offered by the defendant for his criminal activity should, of course, be present in the article's text but worded neutrally, i.e.
Cheng profited from the higher agency commissions, claiming in defense that the goal was to "raise wages for models." The CCS ruled that AMIP engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing, resulting in customers paying more, and having a considerable and adverse impact on the market.
-The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Controversial"?[edit]

The article uses the term "controversy"/"controversial" three times to refer to Mr. Cheng and his opinions, but I think this word is somewhat problematic. It is vague because it is based on reaction to his statements rather than describing the statements themselves. It has a stigmatizing effect because it places public debate under the label of "controversy", implicitly a destabilizing phenomenon.

I believe it is not really proper to label his opinions in this vague way, nor in this negative way, under the principle of NPOV; at least such a term should be attributed to someone and not presented as the judgment of Wikipedia.

Would it be helpful to find some other way to describe Mr. Cheng's statements on social and public policy? Are they outspoken? Are they iconoclastic? Are they partisan? If it is difficult to find a word that describes the statements themselves, perhaps it is not necessary to insert any adjective: perhaps it is enough (in the introduction) to say that Cheng is known for his comments on social and political issues in Singapore. But I expect that editors will be able to improve this wording. Bistropha (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that controversial is actually a neutral label (neither positive nor negative) because it avoids passing judgements on the opinions ("outspoken", "iconoclastic", "strong", "foolish"). For this reason, controversial is widely used throughout Wikipedia, instead of describing the actual content of the opinions. Not all opinions create controversy, so it wouldn't be fair to group them all in one group. For example, Galileo's statements were controversial (even though scientifically accurate). So were comments by Natalie Maines of Dixie Chicks and they have been described as such.BukitBintang8888 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
One difference about the Galileo article is that the term "controversy" is used there fairly consistently to refer to specific topics and cases of public dispute. In the Cheng article, it's used (two out of three times) without referring to a specific matter. I agree with you that it is used in a neutral way in the Galileo article. Bistropha (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The term "controversial" wasn't used by Wikipedia editors regarding Mr. Cheng's opinions and statements out of the blue, but is often used by the media when reporting on said controversies. On a very short google search I found quite a few examples. It's a thoroughly sourced term to use and also not as negative as your might think. Additionally, I'm struggling to think of milder terms in which to describe the proposal to kill the children of terrorists so as to avoid their revenge later in life. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

References

  1. ^ Au-Yong, Rachel (16 December 2015). "Police report filed against former NMP Calvin Cheng for controversial comments about terrorists' children". The Straits Times. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  2. ^ The Must Share News Team (19 May 2018). "Ex-NMP Calvin Cheng Allegedly Slams Kuik Shiao-Yin, Then Deletes Post". Must Share News. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  3. ^ Zannia, Nelya (11 October 2016). "Police closes case of former NMP Calvin Cheng, calling for kids of terrorists to be killed". The Online Citizen. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  4. ^ 永久浪客 (11 October 2016). "Calvin Cheng savours his victory and belittles opposition member". theindependent.sg. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  5. ^ Yong, Charissa (10 October 2016). "No further action to be taken over former NMP Calvin Cheng's online comments, say police". The Straits Times. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  6. ^ Yong, Charissa (11 October 2016). "Case against ex-NMP over FB post dropped". AsiaOne. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
Personally, I wish there were some word other than controversial. It normally implies controversial for good reason, but it haas such a range of possible meanings that it can be unclear. When possible, I would prefer not to use any qualifying adjectives such as this, or to use a phrase like "attracted press comments" . If someone does something terrible, judt say what it is, and let the reader conclude for themselves that it is terrible. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to use controversial, it should be because one (or more) reliable sources labeled them as "controversial", not because Wikipedia editors have assessed differing opinions on both sides, and found them controversial; that would be WP:OR. If a majority of reliable sources have called them "controversial", then saying so in the article in Wikipedia's voice is (*cough*) uncontroversial; if a minority have used the term, they can be quoted and sourced in-line, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If a tiny minority have said it, or only Wikipedia editors have, then the word shouldn't be used at all. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

update to infobox[edit]

Small COI edit request: Could | website = calvincheng.sg be added to the infobox? Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, I can't see why not. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)