Talk:Dominic Ng

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dominic Ng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717084121/http://www.unitedwayla.org:80/about-us/boards-and-cabinets/ to http://www.unitedwayla.org/about-us/boards-and-cabinets/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311071129/http://aemf.org/award/2009-amf-award-winners/ to http://aemf.org/award/2009-amf-award-winners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

China Overseas Friendship Association

Hey Amigao—I happened on the little reversal situation regarding an addition you had made stating that Ng was an executive director of the China Overseas Friendship Association. I have no ability to read Chinese language so the referenced cited is fairly opaque to me, but it looks like the statement has been publicly refuted. I feel like basic WP:BLP standards would demand that we at least note the denial, but given how poorly supported that table is (e.g. no photo or DOB or anything that ensures that this 吳建民 is our 吳建民), I think cutting might be better. Your thoughts are welcome, of course. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Added the response for additional context. Thanks for the source link. Amigao (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

:I am not sure this is a credible source for the insertion that Mr. Ng is an executive director of the Chinese Overseas Friendship Association. Per comments below, this seems to be a google translation to imply a high ranking position where there does not seem to be any support that he participated in this group. The inclusion would seem at best irrelevant and unsupported and, in the context of the current political climate and changes made to this bio, an aspersion that a U.S. citizen is not loyal to his country. :Also, the source for all this is questionable. The Hill is a reputable source but it is only reporting on a story on this topic by the Daily Caller, which is generally not viewed as a credible source. The Hill reported the story because it attracted Congressional comment by a 6 Congressmen who sent a letter to the FBI based on the Daily Caller story that was called out by others as being unfair and political theater to attack President Biden who appointed Mr. Ng to APEC. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, reliable and relevant and not a source for political spin. :I would invite comments from other editors on whether this should be deleted. Dpkpdr (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Dpkpdr, you might want to review WP:NOTCENSORED. - Amigao (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference

Why is this reference in the lead paragraph? StoicAurelius (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Does this reference satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? It sounds out of place but much of the article seems to have been heavily edited. Wifruit (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia editing. Asking if other editors could weigh in on how this sentence about a meeting conforms to Wikipedia's guidance on lead Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead sectionThe lead now does not stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's subject with a questionable NPOV. StoicAurelius (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

:::I am a long time user but beginning editor. This sentence in the introductory paragraph - that someone attended a meeting - does not seem appropriate, especially when basically the same sentence is also found later on in the article. It is also I would suggest misleading to say someone "served as a representative" by observing a meeting. A guest invited by a US Congressperson to observe the House in operation does not make the guest a representative. In any event, it does not follow Wikipedia protocol to make attendance at a meeting a prominent part of a biography. I will delete the sentence. Thank you Dpkpdr (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind the deletion since it seems too minor to be in the lead, but the reason given in the edit summary makes no sense. Of course the sentence duplicates content in the body. That's the whole point of the WP:lead of the article to introduce the subject and summarise the important points. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I noted Dpkpdr edit has been reverted by Amigao who had added the sentence in the first place - what coherent reasons are there for its inclusion? It seems more than a few editors support deleting it. Thanks for responding. StoicAurelius (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

::::::Apologize to not be clear. The sentence does not seem relevant in the lead paragraph of a bio, if relevant to include at all. It also seems a misleading characterization to imply that attending a government sponsored meeting makes one a representative or part of that government. Several Committee 100 members seem to have additions to their bio's that imply this. Committee 100 was started at the suggestion of Henry Kissinger to have ethnic Chinese Americans be part of the US government goal of seeking ways to collaborate where possible with China. Dpkpdr (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Prominent Chinese diaspora business leaders can be and, in fact, are invited to be "overseas representatives" of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. That's a well-documented feature of the united front system. Amigao (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Sorry do not understand your reply. The point is not whether or not he went but 1. Is attendance by a Committee 100 member at, so far as I can tell, an inconsequential meeting fostering the Committee 100 goal suggested by Henry Kissinger of looking for ways where possible to collaborate with China, something that should be in the opening paragraph of a bio - you have apparently re-inserted several times in looking at the history of this page so would be interested in your thoughts on this. And 2. The use of the English translation "overseas representatives" may be technically accurate but seems misleading to suggest it is something more than just an invited attendee. I might also note that the United Front article cited is noted as having a Class C Content Assessment so perhaps not an appropriate reference to explain why you feel attendance at this meeting should be in the opening paragraph of the bio, or even in it at all. I look forward to your thoughts. Thank you Dpkpdr (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) :::::::::I did not get any response from Amigao about why attendance at a meeting as part of Committee 100 duties is relevant in a biography and in particular in the lead of a biography. I deleted but am glad to submit this and seek additional views other than the ones already commenting to get a broader consensus to delete this than we have now. Thank you Dpkpdr (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS stating that serving as an overseas representative of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference is part of a C100 chair's "duties"? If so, that is important context and should probably be included. Amigao (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Was Ng still the chair of C100 or in a position of authority with C100 when he acted as an overseas representative? If so, that should probably be included with a WP:RS to back it up as it is important context. Amigao (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Alerted to this thread. It seems there's consensus to removing the reference of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in the lead paragraph but it was reversed several times. What is the process of escalation if multiple editors agree on an edit but it's consistently reverted by one editor? Are there other editors that can chime in on this or what is the suggested procedure on resolving this? @Nil Einne Wifruit (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's consensus, otherwise editors wouldn't be reverting. I'd note that while I'm mildly supportive of the removal, I don't know enough to feel particularly strongly about it, so my opinion counts very little towards any consensus. And it appears User:Amigao still feels this belongs, so further discussion will be needed to resolve the dispute. Amigao, can you explain why you feel this particular detail is important enough in the life of Dominic Ng that it belongs in the lead? Also considering the things we don't mention e.g. his role on the Committee of 100. Note that the importance of such invitations to the United front system is by itself largely irrelevant in this article. What matters in this article is the importance of the detail to the life of Dominic Ng. Anyway if you cannot resolve the dispute by further discussion just from people already here, I'd suggest some form of WP:Dispute resolution as there are still very few participants in this discussion and even fewer who seem acquainted with our policies and guidelines. BLPN seems to have had only limited success so maybe something else could be tried, or as an alternative a more focused thread at BLPN. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I have COI, so I'll chime in to echo Nil Einne's question to Amigao above. INFjorder (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point regarding a mention of the C100 role in the lead. That's important biographical context, especially the dates of the role, and it has been included. It helps the chronological flow of the lead better. Interestingly, Ng was no longer chair of C100 when he served as an overseas representative to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Amigao (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

:I have submitted this sentence to Notice Board for consideration to stop the delete and revert cycle. Dpkpdr (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see that was closed because Amigao didn't participate. I've warned then that they really need to explain why they feel it is due if they are going to continue to revert. I've also asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Dominic Ng and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dominic Ng. An WP:RfC was suggested during the closure of the DRN request, that's always a possibility but I was hoping this could be resolved without needing something so formal and long since I feel we might just need the participation of a few more experienced editors especially those who know more about the issues. Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne and Amigao: A BLPN tread remains active for right now. I've significantly edited this talk page to reflect or remove technical sockpuppet contributions. Amigao is still paying attention; my past experiences have been positive with you both. I hope now that some bats in the belfry are exposed, a normal discussion can reach and maintain a consensus despite the subject's multiple paid contributors. If you'd like to refine my talk page edits, please hit the notice board. If you'd like to refine this article, this is the best place. I am neutral as to current content and I am not planning to edit it. But I can discuss ideas and concerns here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How does any of this not fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY if it is cited to a Chinese government agency? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: I can't speak for the other editors, but it looks to me that the core of the CPPCC material would not violate WP:BLPPRIMARY because the information from the source wasn't being used to make or support an assertion about Ng. It was being used only to make a statement of fact about him - he served as an overseas representative to the CPPCC in Beijing [1] - which you can find from the English language translation of the article - "During the meeting, Wu Jianmin, former president of the Committee of 100 and chairman of East West Bank from the United States, spoke on behalf of the 38 overseas Chinese attending the meeting." [2] So I would not quite agree with your removal of the information from the entire article. The crux of the disagreement in the previous discussion seemed to be whether it was appropriate Ng's attendance at the conference should be included in the lead section. I personally don't think it's prominent enough to be there, but the problem is we now have a situation where the bulk of the most noteworthy material in the current article - the controversy over his appointment to the APEC Business Advisory Council stemming from his connections to China - is not mentioned anywhere in the lead section. I would implement my recommendations directly into the article, but I do not have the editing powers to do that given the protection status of the article. So I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter and hope that you can take onboard my advice. HiFX (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What you call a statement of fact is still an assertion. If being the overseas representative is that noteworthy, there should be independent secondary reliable sources that comment on that as being part of the controversy and establish that the information is WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: I think there are two issues that you are conflating. One is his participation in the conference and the second is the controversy over his appointment. I did not say or imply that there was a connection between the two, so i am not quite sure why you are making the noteworthiness of his conference role contingent on the appointment controversy. WP:BLPPRIMARY appears to suggest the conference material is noteworthy on its own. We can say he attended the conference and just leave it at that. No need to make any reference to the appointment issue.

You say What you call a statement of fact is still an assertion. I am not seeing this. I gave you a source that directly says he attended the conference in his capacity as an overseas representative. Maybe we can tinker with the wording, but the point is he did attend the conference.

If we cannot agree on whether or not to include the conference material, then can we at least agree on putting something about the appointment controversy in the lead? The material makes up a sizable chunk of the article and I think we can both agree has inherent noteworthiness HiFX (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You gave me a BLPPRIMARY source which is prohibited to use: " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" so no, I don't agree about including the conference. I don't have an opinion about including the appointment controversy in the lead beyond limiting it to a sentence or less to maintain WP:BLPBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the crux of the disagreement. It isn't over the type of source that is being used, it's over how the source is being used. There isn't a blanket prohibition on using public documents as a source of information about a living person, you just can't use them to build an assertion about that person. I'm not sure if you misread the policy or something I wrote, but now that I've clarified what I think is the source of the confusion, would you be willing to reconsider your position? As for your proposal about what we should do with the appointment controversy, I'm in agreement as it was along the same lines with the one that I had in mind. Getting to specifics, I suggest adding albeit after Republican scrutiny over Ng's connections to China-based organizations. to the end of the current sentence in the lead which details his appointment. Would that work? HiFX (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I understand that you are trying to distinguish between "assertions" and "statement of fact". Assertions are supposed to be all information that we post about a living person, even what you consider non-controversial information. You can check with the BLP noticeboard about the appropriateness of this interpretation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be better if we notified the other editors who have commented in this section? We would not need to wait for them to start from scratch as they would already be familiar with the issues at play even though they have not been directly involved in our discussion. As for my proposal, I don't know if you missed it but would it work if albeit after Republican scrutiny over Ng's connections to China-based organizations. was added to the end of the current sentence in the lead which details his appointment? If so, could you add the part in? As said before, I would implement my recommendation directly into the article, however I do not have the editing powers to do that given the protection status of the article. HiFX (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The scrutiny came after the appointment, though. Amigao (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes you are right, that was a total misread by me. How about The appointment attracted Republican scrutiny and criticism over his connections to China-based organizations.? HiFX (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Amigao: I am not sure if you missed this but if you have no problems with what I am proposing, then can you please add The appointment attracted Republican scrutiny and criticism over his connections to China-based organizations. to the end of the lead section. I cannot as I do not have the editing powers to do so. HiFX (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The conference attendance has sourcing and WP:DUE issues but the questioning by Republicans can be mentioned. CurryCity (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I won't go through your point about the sourcing issue as that's already been discussed at length. Instead, I'll take up your edit [3] which I think is your response to my request to have my proposed text included in the article. Assuming that's the case, I don't think your edit satisfies that request. It leaves out any mention of the crux of the issue which is Ng's connections to China-based organizations. As I pointed out to another editor, it forms not only the basis of the appointment controversy but also the majority of the most noteworthy material in the current article. To have that not reflected in the lead section would be quite bizarre. I also don't think it's enough to say his appointment was "questioned" by Republicans when they asked for the involvement of a national security agency specifically to investigate Ng. There is clearly an escalatory element at play here so more forceful wording to describe their reactions would be warranted. HiFX (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of it has been denied by the person and apparently not proven, so BLP should be respected because it is negative coverage. CurryCity (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's actually very positive coverage in Chinese-language media. Keep in mind that being an overseas delegate in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference is considered quite prestigious. Amigao (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly relevant for English Wikipedia. CurryCity (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That is quite a distortion of what the sources say. The LAist article says Ng said he was a member of one of the two entities which were alleged to be front organizations. It also details his relationship to another China-based organization which is not mentioned in the main article. So it is a statement of fact that he has connections to China-based organizations and to say that a majority of it has either been denied by him or not proven would be false. I also don't see how it could be construed as negative material - an opinion which you share with the sockpuppeter who started this discussion - and even if it could, we have no obligation to exclude it given the strong sourcing. The majority opinion - Amigao and I - is calling for this material to be included in the lead section, so I would ask, with respect, that you not remove it.

@Amigao: Pursuant to what I wrote above, please restore the article to the state it was in prior to the removal of the material in question. [4]

On a general note, I have had real life commitments that I have had to take care of, so I am sorry for the delayed response. I have been able to meet some of them which has allowed me to continue my discussion participation here. I cannot make any guarantees I will be able to respond in a timely manner due to the fluidity of my commitments, but I will make my best attempt to do so and hope that this disagreement will be resolved at the earliest opportunity. HiFX (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Amigao: While I welcome your change [5], I don't think it goes quite far enough. There is still no mention of Ng's appointment controversy in the lead section despite the agreement from the previous discussions that the inclusion of the material in that part of the article is warranted. If repetition and preemption are the concerns, then I suggest we tighten the language and add the following to the end of the current sentence in the lead: a move that attracted US congressional scrutiny and criticism from some Republicans over his connections to China. HiFX (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Doctorstrange617: From the discussion above, there is agreement - between 4 editors - that the material about Ng's appointment controversy can be included in the lead section. There is also the WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY guideline which the section would not be adhering to if the material was excluded. As I have taken pains to point out quite a few times now, the event forms the bulk of the most noteworthy material in the article and to have that not reflected in the lead would be quite bizarre. So for the reasons stated, I would ask, with respect, that you stop removing the material in question.

@Amigao: Once again, pursuant to what I wrote above, please restore the article to the state it was in. [6] HiFX (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be that important, unless they actually find something. LAist refers to another source which claimed that Ng led organisations were "allegedly" front groups, so this is far from a statement of fact. He has since denied one connection and the significance of the other one, saying it was honorary and has been terminated. CurryCity (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The "material" is what prompted him to give the interview with LAist, his company to issue denials on his behalf and you to post his defense on the main article [7]. The statement of fact has been referring to Ng's connections to China-based organizations, not the significance of his position in them or nature of the entity itself. In saying he had terminated his membership in one of the organizations under scrutiny, you have proven that Ng had connections to China-based organization. Even if you don't agree that the issue is noteworthy, it makes up a third of the article. So it's quite the hyperbole to say, objectively, that the material isn't important even if nothing is actually found about Ng. If neutrality is the underlying concern, then we can incorporate his and the Democrats's response into the proposed lead material. But we have agreement that, at least in principle, the information about Ng's appointment controversy can be included in the lead section - including from you [8]. HiFX (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying it can be but doesn't necessarily need to be, we should view the notability of this controversy in light of his whole life so far, balanced against his nominal China connection, which seems to be a very brief and superficial one and would be somewhat unfavourable to have in the lead. So probably a sentence that is short without going into the details: His appointment was questioned by six Republican lawmakers. CurryCity (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with @CurryCity. We should weigh the notability of this alleged controversy in light of Dominic Ng's whole life so far, since there is much more to his career than the APEC involvement, based on a wide range of news stories out there. The China connection does appear to be brief and superficial too. Focusing on that in the opening paragraph, without then also mentioning the Democrats' defense of him, would come across as very unfavorable in the lede. Not that it should be favorable either, but the opening paragraph should be balanced as encyclopedic content. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The controversy is notable. It takes up a third of the article due in part to the statements of defense made either by him or on his behalf that the two of you have posted on the current article. His company has issue denials on the matter on his behalf and he's given interviews on it. Members of congress have gotten directly involved. Nominal or not, the point is those connections are, objectively, real and have been the fulcrum of the controversy. The controversy, or at least this one, would not have existed if even Ng's nominal connections had not existed. If we look at the controversy more holistically as the two of you suggest, then it would make even less sense to not mention his connections to China in the lead section. It would not make sense to see it as negative material given the extensive amount of information about his connections to the country in the rest of the article, such as his efforts to promote ties between the U.S. and China when he was chairman of the Committee of 100. The latest proposal was already "short without going into the details" - it replaced the part about his connections to China-based organizations to his connections to the country. [9] To cut it down any further would be falling afoul of basic rules and guidelines. HiFX (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Going through the past edits more carefully, it seems there has been a concerted effort by you two to keep Ng's appointment to APEC in the lead section while removing any mention of the controversy that came with it. This indicates, at a minimum, that we have an agreement between the three of us that his APEC appointment has been significant enough to be included in the lead. But if that is the case, then it will also have to be accompanied by a line about the controversy. The dispute in Congress is what brought Ng's appointment to the public's attention and I don't think it's possible to have one without the other without falling afoul of neutrality rules.

I think some changes can be made to reflect the Democrat's response to the Republican criticism of Ng's appointment in order to maintain neutrality. So here are a few more suggestions. a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over allegations he had ties to the CCP; a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over Republican allegations he had ties to the CCP; a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged membership in organization with ties to the CCP; a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged ties to organizations associated with the CCP The list isn't exhaustive, but it will be by default if it doesn't generate any response from you two. In that case, I will pick the one suggestion that I think best represents the compromise position and have @Amigao: put it into the current article. HiFX (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. I still think that, when there are only two sentences summarizing someone's decades-long career, adding controversy to one of them comes across as a bit harsh. It feels disproportionate, especially since the controversy seems to have gone away months ago (according to media reporting). But perhaps the "Career" section itself can be expanded to better describe Ng's business career over the decades, followed by an additional sentence or two in that opening paragraph down the road. There is a lot of independent, feature-style news coverage about him that hasn't been referenced yet, based on just a quick Google search.

In any case, what if the one APEC sentence was just taken out of the opening paragraph entirely? And then that content was kept in the APEC section, describing the controversy like it is now? The controversy is already well-documented in that section anyway.

That could maybe solve the proportionality problem. Look forward to hearing your thoughts! Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think removing the APEC sentence from the lead section would make any sense. As I have taken pains to point out quite a few times now, it is summarizing a large and important part of the article. To not have any of that reflected in the lead would be quite bizarre. I also think it would be at odds with how you've edited that part of the lead in the past where you were very keen to keep the information on Ng's APEC appointment and only edited out the "controversy" bit that followed it. [10][11] So this new proposal of yours to gut the material from the lead section entirely seems to indicate you are attempting to shift the goalposts in order to achieve your ultimate goal of removing any material that you construe as negative to him there. I think at this point I have to stress we are negotiating and not just discussing how the APEC material should fit into the lead. It's a give and take process - I've already come down quite a bit on my initial suggestion. My newest suggestions do not note only how the Republicans reacted to the appointment (this incorporated your suggestion) and it does not say as fact that Ng had connections to China/China-based organization. All of my suggestions now say there were merely allegations he had connections to the country/organization. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but right now I don't see the same level of willingness to compromise on your part. The final outcome is going to involve concessions from everyone involved, and that includes you.

My suggestion is to add a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged ties to organizations associated with the CCP to the end of the lead section. I think it is the closest we can get to a fair, accurate and appropriate summary of not just the information in the APEC section, but the reality that it is trying to capture. If you can agree to this, then I will ask @Amigao: to put it into the current article. I don't know if I can speak for you, but I think we have spent more energy and time than we care to to resolving this issue. HiFX (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate your feedback, HiFX. It’s not my goal to just scrub this page of content that comes across as more negative. Both sides of the story should be told.

However, let’s look at the current opening paragraph: It is bare-bones and strictly down the middle, simply stating Ng's position at East West Bank and the APEC appointment. It does not speak to his business notability in any positive way, nor does it praise the APEC role. They are just short statements of fact, and neutral ones (NPOV). Including the “controversy” would clearly tilt the scales in an explicitly negative direction, since it suggests that Ng is therefore a controversial figure, when that isn't really the case based on how the minority far-right allegations seem to have fizzled out in a matter of weeks, weighed against a decades-long career.

Not only that, but including this phrase would suggest Ng is some Chinese government puppet, despite the fact that the page already says his family fled Chinese communism in 1949 and he’s been a U.S. citizen since 1988. To suggest this guy is some CCP puppet, based on allegations that went nowhere, is a strong suggestion to make in the first two sentences of his Wikipedia page. There should be a very high bar when highlighting such claims in an opening paragraph, so we should be careful about the “guilt by association” repercussions here, that’s all.

There are obviously levels to “controversy.” Now, if Ng had been charged or convicted of something, that would be an entirely different story. If there was an FBI investigation, that would be more relevant too, but there's been no investigation, lawsuit, or anything else, according to the recent reporting online. Some Republicans said one thing, some Democrats pushed back, and that is apparently that.

Plus, the allegations originated from a right-wing news source that the Wikipedia community doesn’t even hold in high regard. The Daily Caller is regarded very poorly among many Wiki editors, after all.

What do you think, Morbidthoughts? You’ve been involved here before. Would love to hear more input, as we all work together on this one. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Policy is quite clear on this. We don't weigh what goes in the lead based on what we think is important in the article. We weigh based on what is in the article. Since the appointment controversy takes up about one third of the article, it would only make sense that it gets a mention in the lead section. I don't agree with the negative framing you are giving the information. It's no less a statement of fact than his APEC appointment. If it was negative information, then that would be less reason to exclude it as it would be providing balance to "positive" information like his positions at East West Bank and APEC which could be read as a mere listing of his accomplishments. Once again, I should stress here that since you believe the APEC appointment is significant enough to be included in the lead, then it needs to also be accompanied by a line about the controversy. Borrowing your terminology, we can't have "praise" without the "criticism." The fact is, the dispute did happen. It is notable. It is an oddity as it is rare for the candidacy of such an obscure, theoretically non-partisan position to attract such a polarized response at the highest level of American government. The fact that the allegations stemmed from a partisan source, that it did not last a long time or that a security agency did not pursue them does not take away from the controversy's notability which was established by a different source, namely the dispute between Congressmembers who ran with the partisan allegations. If you have an underlying concern about endorsement, then that would be quite a misunderstanding of how an encyclopedia functions. To say that Ng's appointment was controversial is not us saying it, it is us saying what the sources/other people have said about the situation.

Depending on how you count it, at this point there are up to four and at least two people who are saying this material can be included in the lead section. You are the only person who is insisting on keeping it out. HiFX (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, I would like to get @Morbidthoughts' perspective, since they have been involved here before. What about you, @CurryCity and @Nil Einne? The more feedback, the better, so we can come to a rational decision together. In any case, the opening paragraphs should eventually be expanded based on the "Career" section having room to grow, if the APEC material can occupy so much bandwidth throughout.

And, @HiFX, you don't agree that describing Dominic Ng as "controversial" is negative framing right up-front? That doesn't make sense. To simply state his positions at East West Bank or APEC is inherently neutral, since we're not calling him a good CEO or a bad one. We're just saying that he is one. Similarly, mentioning the APEC appointment itself is neither positive nor negative. Bringing up a brief controversy that stems from partisan Daily Caller reporting and fizzled out, on the other hand, is obviously negative framing and disproportionately so, since the guy has been a publicly notable, seemingly non-controversial CEO for decades. And I never pushed for the APEC material's inclusion in the opening paragraph. I'm totally fine with it being excluded, if it means stronger NPOV in that paragraph.

We clearly won't agree on this, so we should see what other editors think... Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If you were honest about looking for the widest input possible, then you would have notified @Amigao as well. Notifying just those users who you think are predisposed to agree with your position is "looking" in bad faith. Morbidthoughts's opinion [12] is clear as is CurryCity's. [13] They have both explicitly said the appointment issue can be mentioned in the lead.

We aren't describing him as controversial. We are describing his appointment as controversial. But to stress once more, that is not us saying it. It is us saying what the sources/other people have said about what happened. Allegations were made by the Republicans that Ng had ties to the CCP which the Democrats disputed. To call it a dispute between Congressmembers over Ng's alleged ties to the CCP is a transcription of what the sources have said. It is an uncontroversial statement of fact, no different than saying Ng was appointed to the APEC BAC. You say mentioning the APEC appointment itself is neither positive nor negative, but by suppressing information about the dispute which the appointment caused, you are clearly attempting to put a positive "spin" on the appointment. Throughout the discussion, you never really address the substance of the controversy which is that it is rare for the candidacy of such an obscure position to attract such a polarized response from members who sit at the highest level of the American government. Your defense that the dispute was brief or stemmed from a partisan source doesn't take away from that, particularly when coverage of the dispute takes up one third of the current article. HiFX (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why are you trying to speak for the other editors now? There's also no need to cast aspersions like "bad faith." I just want to hear other people's thoughts within this specific conversation, since it's been just us two going back and forth for a while. @Amigao's thoughts are obviously welcome too, so we can all try to find reasonable consensus...

As I said, the more, the merrier. It's all in good faith! Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What part of having "no opinion about including the appointment controversy" did you not understand? I have no opinion on whether it should be included! If the controversy is to be mentioned in the lead, it must be brief and balanced. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Doctorstrange617: I'm not trying to speak for other editors. I'm only pointing out the inconsistency between your words and actions. You said you wanted as many people participating as possible but only notified people who you thought would agree with you. Calling that out as bad faith solicitation was just stating a fact.

@Morbidthoughts: I understood what you said, but it doesn't quite seem like you understood what I said. I said you said it can be mentioned in the lead, not that it should or must. I am not seeing any contradiction in saying that and you also saying you don't think it can be mentioned in the lead. It does not seem like you want to get entangled in this disagreement any more than you already have, so out of respect, I will not reference your opinion on this issue any further. HiFX (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It has been quite some time now, but there has been no movement on this discussion even though some of the editors who have been notified of the outstanding issues here have been active on other articles. Given the state of how things currently and formally stand, it appears there is a stalemate. I propose a sentence about the controversy which includes the allegations (a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged ties to organizations associated with the CCP), CurryCity proposes a similar sentence but without the allegations (His appointment was questioned by six Republican lawmakers. and Doctorstrange617 proposes that the sentence be excluded altogether. Morbidthoughts doesn't have an opinion on the issue. That leaves Amigao and Nil Enne as the tie-breaking votes, so @Amigao: and @Nil Einne: can you tell us which proposal you support? (It does not have to be one or any of these three. If you have a proposal that you've come up with on your own and that hasn't been discussed before, you can list that here too) HiFX (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No strong preference, but the first sentence makes for a more substantive summary of the body. Amigao (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I also don't have a strong preference but would lean towards excluding it from the lead as it seems to be a typical kerfuffle in the current hyperpartisan political environment without any clear consequences. Perhaps of the US House had actually gone as far as to investigate Ng themselves it would reach a level of significance making it lead worthy but to be blunt, it seems mostly noise to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I'm on wikibreak and won't be replying further and as I said, I don't have a strong opinion so feel free to do whatever without awaiting further input from me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all. Unfortunately it seems that we are still at a stalemate so it looks like this issue will have to be resolved by a WP:RFC. HiFX (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Morbidthoughts. Reminder: this discussion was originally initiated and maintained by several confirmed and blocked socks. Additionally, it is worth closing as a non-issue or failure of proponents of edits to achieve a consensus. If an unrelated party has a proposed edit, from scratch is indeed the answer. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Dominic Ng's APEC appointment

Should the lead section mention the dispute in Congress which stemmed from Dominic Ng's appointment to APEC's Business Advisory Council? If so, how? Option A: a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged ties to organizations associated with the CCP. Option B: a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over allegations he had ties to the CCP. Option C: His appointment was questioned by six Republican lawmakers. HiFX (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

None. I don't think this is relevant for the lead, but may be added under a separate section such as "controversies" as is standard practice -- OR, my preference is to leave it out all together since it is an accusation and he hasn't been convicted of a crime. We need to tread carefully. Slacker13 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Option A or B I explain my position in further detail in the larger discussion which this request for comment is based on. But to give a quick summary, the dispute should be mentioned in the lead for a number of reasons. These include the facts that the event is what brought Ng's name to attention of the wider public, involved direct and extensive intervention by him (he gave interviews and his company issued statements denying the allegations), attracted an unusual level of political attention (it is rare for the candidacy for an obscure, theoretically non-partisan position like a seat on APEC's BAC to attract such a polarized response at the highest level of American government) and the corresponding "APEC" section takes up a significant amount (one-third) of article space. HiFX (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Omit entirely from the lead, and drastically reduce coverage in the body down to a sentence or two at most. At a glance it seems to lack WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The amount in the body already seems WP:UNDUE given that. How much coverage is there that isn't from February 2023? Even within that timeframe, a quick search suggests that coverage is extremely sparse. If it must be mentioned, C is the least bad; A and B are unacceptable because the article itself doesn't even mention the CCP, and only a single one of the sources does. A quick search suggests that this is because the Hill is the only potentially-usable WP:RS that mentions it at any length at all - a single article is not enough to put a highly BLP-sensitive accusation in the lead of a BLP. There is no indication in any of the sources that this is significant to his notability, no indication that this brought his name to the "wider public", and no indication that this attracted significant (let alone "unusual") political attention. Given the tightly divided congress and the intensity of partisan conflict at the moment, all appointees are receiving scrutiny and many congressmen are mouthing off about them in various ways; if it's just one news cycle, with no indication that it went anywhere beyond a few pull-quotes of grousing by the opposition, then it doesn't deserve more than a sentence or two in the body of their article, if that. Every indication from the available sources was that this was a momentary blip of no significance to the subject's biography, which went nowhere. --Aquillion (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for advancing the discussion, and agreed with Aquillion and Slacker13. Omission from the lead makes the most sense in this case. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it is not included in the lede but, as suggested by Slacker13, could be added under a separate section such as "controversies." Thanks. Path2space (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be settled then. Per the preference of Slacker13 and others to omit, let's just keep the content in question out of the lead, although it can remain in the APEC sub-section for now. Most editors agree that it shouldn't be highlighted in the opening paragraph, so we can just leave it at that. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)