Talk:Yang Tengbo

Real name/Move

H6 is expected to be named today by parliamentarians. We should move the page to his name after it is reliably sourced. The Radio Free Asia citation needs a second cite I feel. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Member of CCP?

In the article, it says he is a Member of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) however I can't find any sources that actually says that. The best I got is that he says he "had never been a member of the Chinese Communist Party". If there's a source confirming that he is a CCP member, do provide it here. But I am removing that info as it's unsourced. 49.186.41.94 (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Also should add that there is no concrete evidence publicly available that Yang Tengbo worked for the CCP's United Front Work Department (UFWD). The allegations linking him to the UFWD were part of the reasoning behind the UK's decision to bar him, but these claims have not been substantiated with definitive proof. Yang has denied any association with espionage or the UFWD. Unless there's a reliable source actually confirming it, it's also unsourced and removing it too and replacing with reliably sourced info. 49.186.41.94 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Since nobody replied to my thread to show any sources supporting that he is a member of CCP and UFWD. Additionally also the UK tribunal themselves in December 2024, found a lack of substantial evidence for those links [1] then it is Unsourced and potentially libelous, and have removed it. But if the future, there is a reliable source supporting with substantial evidence that he is one, then by all means, you can add it back in. 49.181.45.16 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Intro risking speculations

Previously the intro was just encouraging speculations in this version.[2] It writes: "Yang Tengbo (Chinese: 杨腾波,[1] born 21 March 1974), also known as Chris Yang, is a Chinese businessman. He was barred from the United Kingdom in 2023 following accusations that he was using his relationship with Prince Andrew, Duke of York to spy for the Chinese government in the United Kingdom." And that's about it.

When you write it only like that - it just get most readers who don't bother to read rest of article, to mistakenly speculate that a Court officially found him guilty of those allegations and why they later barred him. Except that he wasn't found guilty of anything. There's no good reasoning to not also mention that he wasn't found guilty of those allegations and a court ruling in 2024, determined that despite he was a security risk - there was no substantial proof to support those allegations. I have added a brief one sentence summary of the overall court ruling later in 2024[3], that reassessed his case and still barred him noting he was a security risk albeit lack of substantial evidence for allegations of espionage or for links to UFWD. 49.181.45.16 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your efforts to be fair to the subject, but I'm afraid we do disagree on some points.

When you write it only like that - it just get most readers who don't bother to read rest of article, to mistakenly speculate that a Court officially found him guilty of those allegations and why they later barred him

I simply don't think this is true. "He was barred from the United Kingdom in 2023 following accusations that he was ... spy[ing]" says exactly that: he was barred on the basis of an accusation. It certainly does not say "he was spying", or "he was found guilty of spying". It says he was accused of spying. The version you quoted doesn't even mention the SIAC tribunal, so a person who did not bother to read the rest of the article could not mistakenly speculate that a Court officially found him guilty.

Keep in mind that the SIAC is not a criminal court, and Yang was not on trial. In paragraph 151 of the judgement, there is this:

A judicial review court normally does not make primary findings of fact. Rather it reviews the lawfulness of a decision on the basis of the information before the decision maker when the decision was taken. When the challenge is on ground of rationality, the court will decide whether there was a rational basis for the decision but it will not substitute its view of the merits or re-take the decision for itself.

The court did not, and could not, find Yang either innocent or guilty of anything. I say this because your edit summary [4] A balanced overview of the court ruling. You can't leave out the judgement of the quality of evidence in a court ruling. He wasn't found guilty of anything, but merely ruled a national security risk and barred from UK without any criminal sentencing or jail time. suggests that you may not be aware of this.

You are right that the court did question the strength of some of the evidence, and this is worthy of a mention in the article, but ultimately they decided that the decision was fair, and that is the key point. That doesn't say whether or not the court believes he was a spy, but it does say that given all of the evidence that the Home Office had, it was fair to conclude that he was a national security risk. That is why they ruled the way they did.

(I was going to continue with a discussion of the edits that I had made, but as you have now reverted them I will post this and add another comment later.)

Pink Bee (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I find your edit summary [5] rather unfair. you can't remove all edits – I did not remove all of your edits. Please look more carefully at what I did, and you will see that the removals were duplicate references or trims. The other change was removing the UFWD mention from the Career section, as it was better covered elsewhere. You have not given any real reasoning is simply untrue: please read my edit summary [6]. You will find that I listed the changes I made with reasons as to why I made them.

Thanks. Pink Bee (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No, following accusations - can mean two possible things. 1. That accusations become proven and he was banned. Or 2. accusations wasn't proven and he was still banned because he was considered a security risk. It's unclear what those accusations led to unless you mention it. Also I see you did a vast edit recently removing all my fair edits including mentions in the lead that a Court ruling didn't find him guilty of anything. I know this is inconvenient for those wanting to believe he is guilty, but that information is very valid and significant enough to be mentioned. If we cannot agree, we will go through dispute resolution channels but the information should not be constantly omitted without cause. Simply not liking it, is not a valid excuse to create a large fight over whether to Hide that information. 49.181.45.16 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I see you did a vast edit recently removing all my fair edits including mentions in the lead that a Court ruling didn't find him guilty of anything Really, please read my comment above. The court did not find him guilty of anything because he wasn't on trial. The aim of the tribunal was to find whether or not the decision was fair.

"following accusations" means after accusations, which is to say after he had been accused. Which is exactly what happened: he was accused of spying, and he was barred from the country. Ergo, "he was barred ... following accusations" is a completely fair sentence.

Pink Bee (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's be real. For all we know, that guy can be guilty or innocent. It's not up to us to push a pov that he is. Just put what the court said about the quality of evidence and their ruling. That's it. There shouldn't be a huge debate on whether it not to include a single sentence stating that a tribunal found a lack of abundance of evidence for the allegations but still found enough material evidence to justify seeing him as a national security agency threat. That is a summary of the UK tribunal and should be minimally included in the lead as it's helpful to readers to know that. 49.181.45.16 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a completely fair sentence. Again I should remind you that saying he was barred from UK after accusations. It leaves out whether or not the evidence was enough to substantiate those accusations. They don't - with your version. Instead it Misleads readers into believing those very accusations are proven because you fail to mention they are not. 49.181.45.16 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to debate whether it is a fair sentence, because clearly we are entirely in disagreement there. In any case, it is immaterial: the most recent edit of mine [7] that you reverted [8] had this in the lede:

In 2024, a Special Immigration Appeals Commission tribunal upheld the decision to bar Yang, acknowledging that while there was 'not an abundance of evidence' against him and there may be an 'innocent explanation', there was still enough material to support the Home Office's assessment that he posed a national security risk.

I think that addresses your concerns completely, which is part of why I would rather you had read my edit before reverting it.

Pink Bee (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You certainly didn't write that in the lede. Instead you completely removed that from the lede. Just so we are clear, the key dispute between us is that you don't want readers to know in the lead that the allegations against Yang wasn't proven. Instead you write he was barred from UK after allegations. Anyone who reads that, will naturally and instantly believe those allegations were later proven to be true when you omit that it's not proven, in the lede. 49.181.45.16 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No, really, I assure you: I definitely did write that in the lede. It's here, in the diff: [9] You removed it when you reverted my edit.

Please let me know whether you intend to start dispute resolution. If not, I will do it.

Pink Bee (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Also adding in that "The Home Office believed that Yang may have been working for the United Front Work Department (UFWD). But deleting the part that the tribunal assessed the evidence and found it to be insufficient to prove that Link. I restored that back as it Misleads people into believing there is sufficient evidence to prove that "belief". 49.181.45.16 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is clear that you did not read my edit. I did add that in, but I also added "Their ruling acknowledged that there was "not an abundance of evidence" for links between Yang and the UFWD, although there was evidence to suggest that he had downplayed his relationship with the Chinese Communist Party." So deleting the part that the tribunal assessed the evidence is just not true.

I think you are right that dispute resolution would be the best bet here, as it does not sound like we are going to agree. I am happy for you to post on WP:DRN, unless you would rather I do it.

Pink Bee (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. When I first read the article lede, I thought you completely removed the part about the tribunal finding no abundance of evidence for the for-mentioned accusations. But that sentence was later below the infobox under the first paragraph. That was my mistake. I have undid my revert and apologise for that. 49.181.45.16 (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to agree :) Thanks for the re-rv. And (I should have said this earlier) thank you for your efforts towards making the article fairer. I think we've ended up with a better-balanced article as a result.

Cheers. Pink Bee (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)