Talk:Jun Hong Lu

Tabloid Journalism

I'd suggest the part of Criticism needs to be remove as adhere to the BLP Policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Contents stated in criticism are merely assumptions of a party which breach NPOV. Instead we may add to Further Reading. taking some general texts about Buddhism and concluding that "Jun is no Buddhist" is original synthesis, not appropriate for Wikipedia. According to BLP policy, contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Yet, I will only remove it tomorrow incase anyone has different opinions. Please discuss here. Joe William McKenzie (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Agree I have researched and found that Little House is available for free, not for sale. The content mentioned in the criticism part is invalid. World Zhengxin Buddhist Association" doesn't exist after verification; content in "en.itisalllie.com" website aims at only single entity, potentially defamatory. Lastly, forum discussion is not a reliable source. Henry.R1 (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the parts that you mentioned. Regarding organization reactions, the source is opinion based and do not show opinions of the other party, which lose its neutrality. Contentious material about living persons that is questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Editors must be careful when editing BLP. WP:CRITS Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally discouraged, it is only suitable if there is a large body of critical material. If you are of different opinion, please discuss. Thank you. Joe William McKenzie (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that while there may have been a point in the above discussion, it's a discussion between socks of the same editor. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Unreliable sources cited in lead paragraph

@MelanieN: I noted that the lead section of this article consists of unsourced statements (WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION). I also had a look at the citations in the lead paragraph and found that the first reference (Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia) is sourced from an online forum (sgforums.com) (WP:BLOGS). The second reference has its whole website aimed at one entity and is potentially defamatory (WP:SELFPUBLISH|). According to WP:BLPRS, "... adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". I tried to improve this article but another editor came and reverted my edits. Would you be able to look into it? Thunderbotz (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Thunderbotz, but I do not get involved with the content of the article. You need to discuss this with the other editors here. Now that you have created a discussion section, hopefully other people will chime in and deal with your question. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Another sock of Joe William McKenzie. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Good faith edit

@GSS: You rollbacked by edit, please kindly provide your reason as my edit simply tidied up the paragraphs. Same sentences repeated twice in one paragraph. And Singapore Federation from Singapore? These are cases in point for further tidying things up. Thanks very much AutoPrime (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain the reason for removing the criticism section? GSS ^💬 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@GSS: Thanks for your reply. I didn't remove the section, which is obvious. I tidied up the texts for reasons mentioned above. This article has many issues, not just the criticism part but most of the article I'd say. Can you please explain why you revoked my edits? Maybe you can also join me helping improve this article instead of simply revoking my edits AutoPrime (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing unreliable source requires immediate removal

@WezSchultz:: citing an unreliable website such as facts.org.cn[1] in BLP should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. You are preventing any attempt of doing so. Any well-intentioned editor will seek serious and balanced treatment to BLP. Your version gives undue weight towards criticism.

May I seek your opinion here?　@Horse Eye's Back:

Thanks very much. AutoPrime (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It may be prudent to point out that there is an active discussion on the reliability of facts.org.cn. – robertsky (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

My apology, I accidentally added the website "facts.org.cn", it is a mistake I made accidentally.I was actually wanting to add other source but it was accidentally added.—WezSchultz (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

facts.org.cn seems problematic although since they evidently largely republish other sources the quality of the other source is what matters. However I have no idea where that article came from and we should cite the original article to avoid confusion. The Singapore section was sourced to [2] and while I have no idea who is behind that, it definitely doesn't look like an RS especially for BLPs. However I added back the Malaysian section. While the media landscape in Malaysia can be a bit of a mess, The Star (Malaysia) and I think Kwong Wah Yit Poh are generally acceptable sources especially in an area like this where the government of Malaysia isn't involved. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have found some Chinese language sources matching what was said on Singapore Buddhist Federation's position. Further offline research will be needed to look through the Chinese newspaper archives to verify parts, if not all of the statements made. Putting links here for ease of looking up for future references: https://toutiaosg.com/%E6%96%B0%E5%8A%A0%E5%9D%A1%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E6%80%BB%E4%BC%9A%E6%8F%AD%E6%89%B9%E5%86%92%E7%89%8C%E8%A7%82%E4%B8%96%E9%9F%B3%E5%BF%83%E7%81%B5%E6%B3%95%E9%97%A8 http://durianfm.com/shichengtoushu/# https://www.shicheng.news/show/702338. Note to self, to find Chinese news articles between 9-15 May 2019.

Thank you Nil Einne for helping out to add the Malaysia section back. And thanks to Robertsky for finding the source for Singapore Buddhist Federation. I hope people will forgive my careless mistakes made on adding the false source on previous days.—WezSchultz (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:: per your discussion above, I do not believe sources such as toutiaosg.com, durianfm.com, or news.nestia.com are reliable sources. Unless @WezSchultz: can prove otherwise, i think its legit to remove such citation from BLP's perspective. Tadyatha (talk)

@Tadyatha:: The discussion above is on a different source, and your personal disbelieve cannot be a suitable reason for removing the citation from toutiaosg.com, durianfm.com, or news.nestia.com, please provide a suitable reason, thank you.WezSchultz (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually you need to demonstrate that a source is reliable, not the other way around. And please stop making false accusations of vandalism, even if Tadyatha is wrong about whether those sources are reliable, it's clear their edits were made in good faith and not vandalism. A false accusation of vandalism is a personal attack. Bearing in mind my above comment about an inability to read Chinese media stuff applies, toutioasg looks like a blog to me. I have strong doubts it is an RS. nestia.com looks like it's primarily an app platform. Most of their news is likely from other sources in which case the reliability of the original source is what matters not nestia.com. In the event this news did originate from nestia.com, I have strong doubts they have the reputation for fact checking and accuracy we require for reliable source. I have no idea whether the article did originate from nestia.com or from elsewhere for that particular article given my inability to read Chinese. Durian FM I was originally thinking this could be an RS under the assumption this was an actual FM station. However looking further, it seems despite the name I think it's simply an internet radio station. That doesn't mean it's definitely not an RS, nor for that matter would an FM station definitely be an RS. But the barrier to creating an FM station especially in Malaysia or Singapore tend to be far greater meaning someone doing do is more likely to have put in the effort to have as proper news team with journalists and editorial staff which I'm not convinced is the case for Durian FM. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:: I appreciate your unbiasedness and analysis. The burden of proof rely on the editor who cites them.@WezSchultz ~~~ Tadyatha (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne::Thank you for helping out. I am sorry @Tadyatha for accusing you for vandalism. There are many other editors tried to vandalize this article in the past so I mistakenly assume you for attempting to vandalize. I find that nestia.com reliable at the beginning as there are photographs provided. If the nestia.com along with two other sources are unreliable then I have no idea on looking for another reliable source for replacement as these are all the source I could find. Any advise? WezSchultz (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have found this page has been frequently edited due to the passing of this person recently. Could you please shine light on the rules regarding reliable use of foreign-language source in Wikipedia's English version? Without proper translation and scrutiny of the source, English-readers cannot possibly make informed decision on the quality and reliability of the source. Malaysian's Chinese-language source has been heavily cited here, e.g., 房子小小 却是卢台长大法宝 | 中國報 China Press and 斥附佛外道误导信徒 数佛教团体号召抵制 (enanyang.my)

Thank you very much for your guidance. Tadyatha (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne@Robertsky Tadyatha (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Tadyatha, non-English sources can be used on wikipedia in absence of English sources per WP:NOENG. Also in the guidance, a quoted relevant passage translated into English should accompany the non-English sources as well. China Press and Nanyang, the two websites you linked, are some of the major longstanding Chinese newspapers in Malaysia, and may be considered as reliable in most, if not all circumstances. I think it would be well if WezSchultz provide the translations to the passages he wish to cite. As for the information in the sources, they can be found in other newspapers, i.e. Sinchew, – robertsky (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@RobertskyThanks for your time and guidance Tadyatha (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Robertsky, I will try my best to improve it. Also, please note that some of the writings are done by other editor instead of me.Thank you. WezSchultz (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)