Talk:Junius Ho

Recurring controversial edits

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

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

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

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

July 2019

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

Yuen Long mobs

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

Discretionary sanctions

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

What is his party?

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

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

Re: "whitewashing effort"

@Citobun

Refer to 08:14, 13 May 2020

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

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

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

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

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

I updated the knife description.

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

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

Response to third opinion request:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Replying to both of you at the same time) – It does not "flavour the text" to describe the perpetrators of an attack as "attackers" in the context of the Yuen Long event. It is simply the most direct and neutral description. The chronological order of events could easily be resolved by adding the phrase "prior to the attack". Secondly, while Apple Daily has a pro-democracy editorial stance, it is still basically a credible source for Hong Kong news. A 2019 survey by the Chinese University of Hong Kong saw Apple Daily ranked as the second-most credible Chinese-language newspaper based in Hong Kong (out of 17). That said, "白衣人" is now readily understood in Chinese, in Hong Kong, to refer to the Yuen Long attackers, while "white-shirters" in English is not, and is just unnecessarily obtuse and confusing. Citobun (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia, Citobun, and Thomaslam1990: I don't know anyone calling them "white-shirters". If we are to invoke the word "white", use "White-clad". Apple daily is inherently biased. For a less biased source, use SCMP or The Standard, or even global sources and media like the Economist (assuming that there was coverage). Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia, Citobun, and Eumat114: I agree with Eumat's suggestion to adopt the term "white-clad" instead. Other examples of SCMP posts refer to the incident as such: "A video circulated online showed Ho shaking hands with men wearing white tops and thanking them on the night in question.", "White-clad men attacked travellers and passers-by at Yuen Long station in July", "A video circulated online showed Ho shaking hands with men wearing white tops and thanking them on the night in question.", etc. I disagree with Citobun's response about Apple Daily's credibility. It's literally a survey he's citing, which is based on opinion and not a thorough study of journalistic integrity in any legitimate metrics. Furthermore, Chinese University students are well documented to be highly in favour of the protest and harbouring anti-establishment sentiments. Additionally, as I've explained many times before, almost like a broken record now, yes saying that they are attackers assumes that they are attackers at the time of which Ho shook hands with them. This flavours the texts. Consider this hypothetical situation: Jerry's friends with Eric Harris since kindergarten. Many years later, in 1999, the Columbine massacre happened. Is it correct to henceforth label Jerry as a friend of murderer, or that he played with a murderer when he was young or fell in love with a murderer when he was young? etc. I do not believe this is the correct attitude to adopt. Because it assumes responsibility or guilt despite there being none. It also invokes other emotional or moral baggage by association. If we are truly committed to a NPOV, we should at least/at minimum ensure that the two events are painstakingly unique and not necessarily having any causal relations. This is why I was so adamant about the interpretation of "attackers" (see previous discussion: "Not distinguishing the temporal order of the two events will inevitably lead to bias and flavouring of the texts.")Thomaslam1990 (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia, Citobun, and Eumat114:: FYI This is what I wrote which triggered Citobun's COI and paid editor/white-washing allegations against me. "Prior the '721' incident, Ho was filmed reportedly supporting and congratulating white-shirters, commenting that "all of you are my heroes" and giving a thumbs-up gesture.[76] Ho claimed that he was simply greeting one of his supporters, and said it was "normal". He also praised the white-shirters for "safeguarding" their district[77][78]" I do not see how this is problematic. I am absolutely willing to adopt the phrase "white-clad" to cohere with SCMP's reporting. But the term 'attackers' is absolutely unprofessional.Thomaslam1990 (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thomaslam1990, as Citobun remarked the reasons of the "allegation" are:

1. supportive type editing (a little bit, yeah, but not very serious),
2. experience with Wikipedia (doesn't seem problematic to me given that you've come this far, but I'd certainly encourage you to continue the adventure of Wikipedia) and
3. long history of COI editing (unavoidable due to the sensitive nature of Ho).

I won't exactly have labeled you as a COI editor, but let's see what the other two says about this edit. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to all, without any extra background I don't feel entitled to continue discussion except remarking that Apple Daily should be treated as a WP:BIASED source, much in the same way as Global Times (環球時報). (So don't ping me here from now on.) Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eumat114:Just FYI bias is independent of reliability (from the page you linked, which I don’t think you read, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."), we deprecate Global Time because it is unreliable not because its biased. You appear not to understand how wikipedia policy and guidelines work in this regard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, we didn't deprecate it. There is no consensus about the reliability of Global Times, which is a long way from being deprecated. What we have been talking about is an issue of wording, which is an issue of bias rather than reliability. Wordings used in Apple Daily should be treated like wordings at the other end of the spectrum (Global Times). I have never cast doubts on their reliability (though I do know that Apple Daily is less reliable than BBC on HK politics). So given that this discussion is stale, let's leave it here. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 12:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No consensus means cant be used on a BLP page like this one. Apple Daily and Global Times aren’t on the same spectrum, Global Times isnt an independent media outlet... It isnt even in the same class of reliability as Apple Daily. If you want we can take this to RSN. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, if you've read an Apple Daily article and a Global Times article, you'll get what I mean. Putting that aside, the discussion above was related to the use of wording in the article, an issue which seems to be resolved. Apple Daily is probably not significant enough to merit discussion at RSN, and I have never considered using either Apple Daily or Global Times as a source. I'm taking the "middle ground", i.e. a more neutral source than either, which is SCMP. At this point, the discussion is over; all I was saying is that we should treat Apple Daily with caution when it comes to wording; this is not a statement on reliability. Thank you. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We don’t have a choice but to give precedence to SCMP, as this is a BLP you cant use non-WP:RS outside of very specific circumstances... But ok, we can call it the “middle ground” if that makes you happy. I’ve read both, the Global Times is a propaganda rag that can't even keep the day straight when it comes to fact checking. I agree that given their current non-WP:RS status we should treat Apple Daily (HK) with caution on a BLP page like this, probably more so than we already are. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

not just a middle ground (politically), but one that is one of the least biased in HK. Plus, it's in English so... let's go with it. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 15:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack and Eumat114:: RE:Facebook citations, you're allowed to cite FaceBook/Twitter (see: WP:SOCIALMEDIA). It's not pushing a POV either as you've interpreted, it's following on from the discussions made already on the page. I shall be reverting back to my previous draft including new amendmends made on grammar from edits made post-your reversion. Furthermore, should you insist that these POVs are not warranted, I will instead clear up other POVs that are also deemed unnecessary in pushing other people's POVs. Thank you. Thomaslam1990 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thomaslam1990: can you provide an example? I don't see any mention of Facebook/Twitter on this, plus any such citations must have come from Ho himself (and not some press reporters). The reason we came here is to ask for consensus, so that's wat we should be doing. Don't forget the "D" in WP:BRD. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless having checked the reversions, I think it's time for me to withdraw from this discussion, as I am already finding the arguments hard to understand. All I have to say is, in such contentious cases, especially claims of partisanship, social media is to be avoided. For HK news, choose SCMP which is probably as neutral a source as it can get in HK. As for the POV issue, I am no longer qualified to go on in this discussion, so you may stop pinging me altogether. Thanks, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I shall start a new thread proposing the changes that need to be implemented but no one is willing to do it - agendas/populism etc. Meanwhile I'll only focus on the white shirter portion as discussed. Still learning the wiki-bureaucracy. Thomaslam1990 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Editors: Please do not tag me in the discussion as I only provided the 3rd opinion and am not part of the discussion. I appreciate it. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 07:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Proposed Changes

As advised by Eumat114, I shall now list the things that I think needed to be changed here and reach a consensus prior to publishing.

Feel free to use this section for other editor's proposals.

1. Fixing ARU controversy and integrating the Lawyer Qualification Dispute into legal career section (see my previous revision attempts). I have shown many times already that the controvery is caused by a deficit in ARU's search engine unabling to refer Ho's first name "Junius" with the indexed "Kwan Yiu Ho". try searching it yourself. The citations are also extremely outdated. I advise that we archive the new search results to fix the unwarranted controversy.
2. Add Ho's work for green energy and solar panels in his political career. This is a huge contribution to rural villages that is surprisingly not included/overlooked.
3. Update Tuen Mun attack follow up news. i.e. the current status of the suspect.
4. New Section "Political Views" and integrating Tiananmen square protests/same-sex marriage/opposition to Occupy central to it. I suggest that the "kill mercilessly" controversy to be merged with his views on opposition to occupy central.
5. The simplification of controversies and re-verifying citations. In particular the removal of rebuttals making the page reading like an autobiography. See talks with @Galendalia

Thomaslam1990 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thomaslam1990, you'll have to find the editor that disagrees with you. I am not (yet) in major content disagreement with you and the one you need to find and talk with is Horse Eye Jack. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 00:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eumat114 and Horse Eye Jack:: Thanks for the reminder. Pinging him. Thomaslam1990 (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

References