Talk:Ho Yeow Sun/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Chronological order

I think splitting her bio into "musical" and "humanitarian" is pretty awkward, as information is duplicated and split. Can't we just do it in chronological order, like every other bio out there? Jpatokal (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because there'd be too much going on in each year. Every year would be a slew of stuff including charity work, accidents, album releases, endorsements and acting in dramas (the last of which Sun Ho obviously does not do). Pandacomics (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the discography should still be separate, but every other artist in the world seems to manage fine with a chronological bio. See eg. Madonna (entertainer). Jpatokal (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Counterexamples - Jay Chou and S.H.E. Both are Featured Articles, so something must've been done right, not to mention that they're the most relevant examples to this article because both are C-pop artists. Pandacomics (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pandacomics. If we combine it, it might look untidy and will come across as a slew of stuff. I think the new current breakdown in the article is good. It’s not duplicated and spilt. It’s good as this helps the reader in finding what is of particular interest. Heavyboatman (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Television performances and broadcasts

In Wikipedia, "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts." (Taken from http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons)

The section "Television performances and broadcasts" should be allowed to use Primary Sources as its purely descriptive.

By: Referencefreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Referencefreak (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be checking on all the ref links which u have added on Sep 22, BUT please do not remove any legitimate maintenance tags & its in-line comments, that were posted by any members of WP:FACT or by a reviewing admin, when it was explicitly mentioned that it has to be duly verified first before such removal next time. Any inappropriate or misleading ref links found will be removed & action will be taken on the user accordingly. We hope you continue to live up to your 'moniker' in helping us on other similarly tagged & poorly sourced articles too, & not as a newly created one-time account (18:14 UTC, 22 September 2008) used exclusively for certain articles like some previous cases [1], including numerous anonymous IPs, which we have seen & dealt with on this article to date. Do read & understand our policies and guidelines well in order to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding or disputes, like those preceding cases seen on this talkpage so far. Thank you. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Worship Pastor

Please do not revert this edit. It is factually incorrect to call her "music director" when David Yem was very publicly the music director while she was Worship Pastor. The cited reference of Derek Dunn's "personal communication" is completely incorrect and unverifiable. I have listed two other references - music director David Yem, and Richard Fowler as well as Derek Dunn. You will not find any online refutations to this, other than Sun's interview where she said she's not a "preacher" type of pastor, which is correct. A Worship Pastor doesn't preach, but they do pastor and counsel as per her interview.

So please do not revert this and turn this into an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThankful (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia even has an article quoting David Yem as being music director while Sun was at CHC - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cross_(album)

"We want church music to cross over and impact the marketplace in the area of arts and the media. So that as a church, we can be relevant to society and we can touch the hearts and spirits of both young and old and through that, allow them to feel the anointing and feel the heart of God wants to say to the heart of the world, through the church. ”

— David Yem, Music Director of City Harvest Church, Harvest Times, January-March 2006 Issue

David was music director, Sun was worship pastor. Leave it be. --TheThankful (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

David Yem has been music director since at least 1998/99. You do not understand the nature of a worship pastor. The role does not contradict the communications from either her or the church. A worship pastor is not an ordained pastor, but neither are they a music director —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThankful (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another example of a person similar to a music director, but with added pastoral responsibilities who is NOT a "preacher", but is a worship pastor: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Reuben_Morgan TheThankful (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep adding this: "Ho was the Worship Pastor of City Harvest Church’s Creative Department." I'm asking you to do a very simple thing: please find a reliable source for this statement. If you can't find one, then we can't include this. Jpatokal (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I named the sources. The information I'm replacing was listed as a personal correspondence from Derek Dunn. Well i've had personal correspondence with Derek Dunn, David Yem and Richard Fowler all. I worked UNDER David Yem when he was music director in 2001. You can't just keep standing by some personal email. Additionally, as said, the position of Worship Pastor is in many ways similar to a music director but one who counsels people. There is no conflicting story, other than, if the quoted email from Dunn is true, is an attempt to describe her position in layman's terms.--TheThankful (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why people make clarifying a truth so difficult. There is so much that needs to be written, yet so much energy gets spent on a title. I would like to write an article on David Yem, music director of CHC from the late 1990's to present, but if I cannot even remove a conflicting piece of information from THIS page, that de-validates his position, how on earth will that happen?--TheThankful (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally CD promos like this would indicate Sun did not resign in 2003 as the article states: http://www.tabernaclemusic.net/index.cfm?menuid=30 as she was still in 2005 a worship leader, leading her worship team. Meaning she was still worship pastoring, whether on the payroll or volunteering.--TheThankful (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read and understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you want to call Ho Yeow Sun a "worship pastor", you must find a reliable source — for example, a newspaper, the official Church website, an official statement from the Church, etc — that uses those words to describe her. This is particularly important for biographies of living people, since there has been considerable controversy over whether she was a pastor or not.

Now, we have reliable sources stating that Ho's title of pastor was purely honorific and that Ho resigned in 2003 (as a paid employee, mind you, this says nothing about unpaid work). This does not mean either statement is true — however, it does mean that you need to find another reliable source if you want to dispute them. The CD promo you note is interesting, but as a personal website it's not a reliable source, and anyway it uses the term "worship leader", not "worship pastor". If you have Church correspondence that describe her as one, and you have permission to publish it, then please post it here. Jpatokal (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are basing the original claim on a supposed email... this is not a reliable source! Call up David Yem and ask him if he was music director in 1999. Here are his details: http://www.chc.org.sg/eng/members/cm_Strikeforce.php TheThankful (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? You are welcome to call Mr. Dunn at +65 6737-6266 or mail him at derekdunn at chc.org.sg and confirm the validity of the mail quoted above. The "Pastor in a Broad Sense" letter printed in Streats also says more or less the same thing. Your "personal communications", on the other hand, do not seem to be recorded anywhere at all? Jpatokal (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, please note, the title "Worship Pastor" settles any such controversy, and I have created a page on Wiki describing the job of worship pastor. The minute you throw the word "pastor" around, people think of a preacher and have raised expectations and demands from the person. I can attest she was not a pastor. She was a worship pastor. The Music director Yem, did the nuts and bolts organising, while she maintained oversight of the team and overall musical direction. In description, it's very similar to a music director role.

As I pages I linked to describe though, a worship pastor is a worship leader who leads other worship leaders. A music director is not necessarily a worship leader, and in many churches is not. The two roles are very different. By not understanding these roles, a controversy exists where none should. If Dunn's email is in fact actual, it would be to create delineation between what people perceive a pastors job to be, and what her actual job was, despite people calling her "pastor". --TheThankful (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

i added a link that said she was music pastor from 1993. Again, an incorrect term but one that correctly describes the function of the job for the paper's readers, as "worship" is often not understood by those unfamiliar with church culture. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/2148/poon-says-sorry-pastor-asks-church-to-forgive --TheThankful (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That Straits Times article is a good source for her being called a "music pastor". It is not a source for her being a "Worship Pastor". Jpatokal (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bro you are making a mountain out of a molehill and getting very pedantic about an emphasis. A "worship pastor" minsters in a church via "music performance". Corporate worship in a church is musically expressed. She was also called a "singing pastor" if you'll recall. Both are partially correct descriptive terms of function, in that they merge the pastoral/counselor and the musical/vocal, which is what I was asserting. However, the correct term in christian churches for a worship leader who is overseeing or mentoring or working alongside a music director is a "worship pastor", which is actually what, while I was there, she was called.--TheThankful (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to take our cue from "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources" (WP:V): "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I do not think anyone is saying that the personal communication on which the information is based is falsified or wrong. The problem is that it is not a published source, which means it cannot be easily verified by other editors or readers of the article who wish to confirm the accuracy of the information. That means the information does not comply with the standard set by WP:V, which is one of Wikipedia's key policies. Can't some church newsletter or magazine be found that confirms that Ho was indeed a "worship pastor" at the church? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there's none saying she's "music director" either, by reverting the edit, we're placing one non-published claim above another.

See Streats, November 6, 2003, article "A Pastor In Broad Sense", by John Lam Leng Hung (secretary) and Chew Eng An (treasurer) for the City Harvest Church Management Board. Direct quote: As its music director and a leading counselor, Ms Ho is affectionately referred to within the congregation by the honorific "pastor"... (emphasis mine). A digital copy of the entire letter is here. Jpatokal (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What I have done though is name a replacement person in the position. I was there. I worked under David Yem as music director in 2001, while Sun was Worship Pastor. While a published source would be preferable, in the absence of one, why are we exalting some email correspondence whilst diminishing a newspaper reference (citing the combination of music and pastoring), plus the provided names of sources; along with an explaination of the role: that marries media mentions, hearsay and Sun's interviews into a consistent and non-contradictory truth. I have raked over the internet and not found anything other than Yem's quote from 2006, the review listing her as Worship leader leading a team in 2005 (consistent with a worship pastor role) and the newspaper article describing her as a music pastor. Combined this is more than enough to support my first-hand, primary source assertion. --TheThankful (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You've said so much, TheThankful, but all we're asking is for a piece of paper - a scan of a church newsletter, scans of the church directory, a Sunday pamphlet, ANYTHING - that says what you've been saying. That's seriously it. Pandacomics (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well next time I visit Singapore I'll be sure to check in an get one from 8 years ago.... In the meantime, I'd suggest my evidence considerably outweighs the "music director" side. Does it really matter? It matters to me, because it de-validates David Yem's work. People will blithely quote Wiki, and it could adversely affect him, if he has on his bio/correspondence etc. something contrary to here. David has been music director for roughly ten years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThankful (talk • contribs) 06:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We have have a newspaper-published letter written by the secretary and treasurer of the City Harvest Church Management Board and a direct statement from the current HR Manager of CHC, both confirming that her title was "Music Director". Your evidence for "Worship Pastor", on the other hand, seems to consist of nothing except your own assertions. Jpatokal (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought "Ho and other church members, including current music director David Yem, led worship as part of City Harvest Church's music department" was neutral enough. For one, it tells us that it is David Yem who is the music director right now (see TheThankful's qualm about Yem not getting his rightful dues). Secondly, it recognizes that she obviously was a church leader in a music-related capacity, thereby avoiding the term "music pastor", "music leader", "worship leader", "worship pastor" or other names often incorrectly used by the media. (The incorrect usage is more likely than not a major factor in this debate, no? I mean, considering the media treats them as equivalent terms when I presume they're not...) Pandacomics (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments man. Appreciate the civility and logic involved.

Re. the music director, the music director role is not the same thing as a worship leader. Very different. In many churches, one person might perform both duties, but quite often the music director is not a worship leader. For, a worship leader is a vocalist. As churches corporately worship using songs with lyrics, only music directors who sing, therefore lead worship. David Yem is not a singer. Ho Sun, obviously is. Ho Sun however, to my knowledge plays no instrument, which David Yem does (guitar). As such, even though David, as MD answered to her as WP, she needed his skills as MD to communicate to the other musicians. The flow of onstage direction would go -> Worship Leader, Music Director, Band. A worship pastor therefore, may or may not be at any given time a music director and worship leader, but may also have a team of worship leaders and/or music directors, whom they mentor outside service times.

Semantics? Well I care about factual correctness in Wikipedia. Even if Derek Dunn is being somewhat revisionist in oversimplifying Sun's role for the benefit of removing misconceptions about her being a preacher/pastor, the truth is what should be presented here, in the form of educating a reader to what a worship pastor is in a church. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia?

I also created a page for worship pastor which I would have spent more time embellishing were I not bogged down on this simple matter. I believe it's better to educate a reader about a situation, rather than simplify an explanation to avoid damaging confusion. Hence my effort in this endeavor.

As I have commicated, I am not in Singapore, and have no access to CHC literature or pamphlets to scan, but I was there in 2001 and firsthand saw the mechanics involved, consistent with the descriptions I have outlined.

Thankyou --TheThankful (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not getting through to you at all here, now are we? Wikipedia's core principle is verifiability, and your claims are not verifiable. You're using [2] as a reference for "Ho served as Worship Pastor", but the article doesn't say that; it says "music pastor".

If a British newspaper calls the US secretary of defense the "managing director of defense" or "the minister of defense", in describing the jobs function, does it stand we should parrot the error, or use the correct terminology? The music pastors in Charismatic Churches are called "worship pastors" No other church uses the word "music pastor" so why would we invent a term because a newspaper described it in layman's terms for it's readership to understand the nature of her job? --TheThankful (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether "music pastor" is correct or not is immaterial. What's clear is that a) you have no sources for "worship pastor" in print, and b) the church itself uses the term "music director". Do you agree? Jpatokal (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is material. The media make mistakes. In this case, semantically. It is important to understand the spirit of what they're reporting, rather than the letter. She was a "music pastor". I'm not arguing she wasn't. That is not what the christian church calls a pastor who ministers in music however. I'm arguing the correct term be used, in light of the fact that CHC is a charismatic christian church. If they said she was a "music priest" or "singing minister" or "music prophet" I'd be arguing she be listed as a worship pastor, again, by virtue of the church being a Charismatic Christian church and the uniformity of terms within that movement. I cannot help that the reporter took it on themself to self-describe her role in laymans terms. --TheThankful (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

a) You have no sources for "worship pastor" in print. b) The church itself uses the term "music director". Do you agree? Jpatokal (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Devil's advocate - TheThankful's stance is that these two are separate positions filled by two different people. There exists, according to TheThankful, both a music director (David Yem since 1999) and a "Worship Pastor" (who does the music in a non-preaching capacity.) Pandacomics (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for TheThankful's stance, we have multiple reliable sources where Ho's title is given as "music director", and zero (0) where it is given as "worship pastor". Jpatokal (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I provided a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, which used the term "music pastor" which if you would check the worship pastor jobs posting, you'd find practically co-terminous with "worship pastor". You do not understand the position, yet you want to edit this article? You could actually learn something, and yet you persist in defending an ignorant position.--TheThankful (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, thanks for your impartial contributions. yes, that is my point. The music director is usual a more technical and organizational position, while the worship pastor is more of a conceptual, pastoral and spiritual role. The roles do contain overlap and one person may do both jobs, but in this case, there has been two people with Yem answering to Ho. --TheThankful (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the self-admitted fact that you were working for the church also presents a major conflict of interest here; by standard guidelines, you should not be editing the article at all. Jpatokal (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What conflict of interest? This is an article about Ho Sun, not CHC. In any case, I spent time at CHC for a few months in 2001 if that. That hardly disqualifies me from being objective about a woman's career after I left the country. I do not represent the church and have nothing to do with them. All I'm doing is seeking to see truth represented, and happened to have a first-hand outsider's view of the situation. Which actually DOES qualify me as an objective observer. Do you disqualify a reporter who witnesses an event because they were there?--TheThankful (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You've stated that you worked under David Yem (as a paid employee?), and you've repeatedly stated your concern that this article "de-validates David Yem's work". So, yes, that's a conflict of interest, and no, you are not an objective observer. As per WP:COI, you're welcome to contribute your insights on the Talk page, but you should "avoid or exercise great caution" when editing the article itself. Jpatokal (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not a paid employee no. There's no conflict of interest. My interest is in seeing the truth represented.--TheThankful (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You worked under David Yem, yes? You are concerned that this article "de-validates David Yem's work", yes? Jpatokal (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, let's keep things civil and focus on the dispute rather than on each other. TheThankful, I think it has been pointed out by a number of editors that your e-mail correspondence, which I am not disputing the factual accuracy of, unfortunately does not comply with "Wikipedia:Verifiability". It is not a published source and so it is difficult for editors and readers to ascertain its accuracy. Although you are not in Singapore, you appear to be in touch with the church. Is it possible for you to ask someone from the church to look through back issues of the church's magazine Harvest Times (for instance) and locate a published reference? Alternatively, I note that back issues of the magazine are accessible online – not for free, though. Jpatokal, if it has been alleged that the Streats article is inaccurate, then since this is a biography of a living person I think it is best to err on the side of caution and not rely on the article as a reference. TheThankful is right: newspapers often make factual mistakes. The compromise suggested by Pandacomics seems sensible. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the "music director" title is not from a journalist's pen, it's from letter written by the church itself, reproduced verbatim in Streats. There is no reasonable doubt that it accurately reflects the church's opinion, and we have independent verification (the mails from Derek Dunn) that confirms its contents. Jpatokal (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All it reflects is a desire of Derek Dunn to correct a misconception that Sun was an ordained Pastor in the church. It does not address David Yem's position as music director while Sun was on staff, nor the media use of the word "pastor" in any descriptions of her, nor the reality that as a charismatic christian church, her role within the church is more consistent with that of a worship pastor than that of a music director. If you'll note, the church website lists Kong Hee's title as "President". His role, consistent with any other church, is/was that of "Senior Pastor". In any case, if we are to reach consensus, rather than running roughshod over the concerns, we should remove titles altogether, and simply list the functions. I wrote that she led the creative department - which she did. She also led worship and counseled and mentored other worship leaders in the church. Having familiarity with church terminology, one understands these roles = "worship pastor", much as a 4ft digging object with the qualities of metal, sharp edges, wood handle etc = spade. One need only do a google search for "worship pastor" to find all the job openings, and see what is required to understand this. But seeing as people are refusing to understand this simple reality, rather than call the spade a spade, consensus would be as I and another suggested: No title.--TheThankful (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's some such job listings - http://www.churchjobs.net/jobs/listings/joblistings-music1.html TheThankful (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would be amenable to the compromise of leaving out the title. However, in Ho's case the "pastor or not a pastor" thing is quite notable, and the article's readers deserve a clear explanation of the church's stand — which is that she was music director and the "pastor" title was purely honorific. Jpatokal (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What about "worship pastor" do you not understand? Calling her a worship pastor is not inconsistent with the 'honorific' nature of being called 'pastor', and actually explains it.--TheThankful (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I will endeavor to explain it once more. A worship pastor is not an ordained pastor who preaches. They are quite often a volunteer (read honorific) vocalist/instrumentalist who lead worship and mentor a team of worship leaders and musicians (who are in turn organised, scheduled and rehearsed by a music director unless the worship pastor is also performing that role). If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it is best to call it a duck, especially if the non-initiated call it a "fish" and so to be distinct, those who know the duck call it a "bird". "Duck" is more specific and accurate, so call it how it is.--TheThankful (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Allegations

I am wondering if it is pertinent to start an article with allegations against a subject, especially if in the case of Poon, where the 'allegator' ;-) retracted their allegations. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/2148/poon-says-sorry-pastor-asks-church-to-forgive

I would think most people are innocent until proven guilty, so can we not apply the same standard to a person's reputation? Or must they be forever scarred just because someone makes any claim against them?

Why not create a new sub-section called "allegations and controversy surrounding sun" if you want to document the controversy.--TheThankful (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I created a separate section for the allegations, so that the music history focusses instead on that part of her life.--TheThankful (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be one. As per the previous discussions on this very page, it was merged back into the body of the article. Jpatokal (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to create what looks like an argumentative and vindictive article. These revisions of yours make it look like a petty cheap shot. The controversies obviously should be presented, but not in the context of her musical output. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThankful (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edits as they violated this part of WP:BLP - Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. --TheThankful (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think having a separate "Controversies" section gives much more prominence to the claims than having them in the article, no?

If someone comes to the article to find out about the controversies, they should be easy to find. If they come to find out about the music, we should not be thrusting controversies born in a Singaporean rumor-mill in their face. --TheThankful (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, your edits make it sound like "Poon" (who? your version never explains) was the only one "concerned", when it's obvious from the ST/Today articles [3] that there were many others involved. Jpatokal (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Poon was the one who went to the press with the financial issue. He later retracted. People may have had misgivings, but people always will. We do not report hearsay and rumor, but verifiable facts. Poon claimed some insider knowledge which apparently was found to be false, hence it should be in the article, especially if peoples misgivings were founded or increased on rumors resultant from his statements. Unless you've got a POV to push? ;-)--TheThankful (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right: we report verifiable facts like "the issue was splashed on the front cover of Today" and "the one guy who was foolish enough to give his name in public later apologized". However, "the allegation was true" or the "allegation was false" is not a verifiable fact; we simply don't know. See the difference? Jpatokal (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is you do not make unproven allegations the main focus and feature of a musician's biography. Doing so gives biased validity instead of neutrality, as it IMPLIES guilt. How you report is as important as what you report. Otherwise any person can sabotage another's career simply by making a grossly untrue allegation and then retracting it. If I go to the papers and suggest Obama had sex with me, are we going to find that allegation the main focus of an article about him? Hardly. Neither should it be the case with Ho Sun. --TheThankful (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"The issue is you do not make unproven allegations the main focus and feature of a musician's biography." Devil's advocate - do note that it's much further down the article compared to "Musical Career". Not to mention the Controversy section contains one whopping paragraph compared to the gazillion paragraphs with 20+ citations in the Musical Career section. Pandacomics (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That would reflect the amount of coverage given to her music vs the controversies yes? I cannot invent citations for the controversies and put them in. It also as I said, allows for the presumption of innocence in a person and the nature of the reasons for her fame. 200,000 people do not turn up to a show because of a controversy over clothing, they go to listen to songs they like from a performer they like. Let the reasons for her notability be at the fore. Surely this stands with fame as well as notoriety. If a person gains notoriety because of a conviction or corruption scandal, surely you would make that the focus of the article? I just just think it's important to not let people vandalise a person's career just by throwing allegations around, and then having those allegations be at the forefront of an encyclopedia article. This is, as has been a BLP. As such, no matter what we think of her, she deserves an impartial article that reflects the facts concerning her career. --TheThankful (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be one. As per the previous discussions on this very page, it was merged back into the body of the article. Jpatokal (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As brought up by Jpatokal, this section was merged into the article after rounds of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanofsun (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fund Probe

Please keep to the necessary detail and not needlessly pad the article. I.e. number people questioned only needs to be mentioned once. If no arrests have been made, the fact need not be pointed out explicitly as it understood. Same with mention of legal representation, which is common for people being investigated (see the Durai and Ming Yi who also had legal representation). Unless the mention has any special meaning (i.e. the lawyer has done anything that is notable in the context of the article).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

why does the lead article have her being questioned by police????? People get questioned all the time without becoming a witness or having charges laid. It's poor form to start article this way as it's irrelevent to her music career. Diminishes the article with an apparent bias and agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.198.246.60 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the section, but moved it into a paragraph dealing with CHC. Jpatokal (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought of the day

While we'll never know for sure, I'd like to think that all the electrons spilled over this had at least a little something to do with this. So, all you church members who have done their darnedest to whitewash this article for years, would any of you care to admit that there was some fire behind this particular smoke? Jpatokal (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like its gonna be quite "hot" around here soon, I know we have all had trouble with whitewashers hereabouts, rubbing it in may just incite them to something drastic:P In any case, keeping the article neutral and clean (of bias) is still of utmost importance. And with the new info coming in from official sources now all the time its harder for rules to be bent to keep the case out of this article, which is a good development for completion's sake.Zhanzhao (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)