Talk:Justin Huang

Controversies

With [1], a very large amount of referenced material was removed by Chongkian. The comment was that "this should be written inside the miramar resort article, not justin huang's article", but only a part of the removed material seems to relate to Miramar Resort. The rest concerned the Taitung Incinerator and Pharmaceutical Corruption Charges. Given Huang's close involvement, it seems reasonable to summarize the key points here and to point to the other articles (where they exist) for details per WP:SUMMARY. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I am ok with a summarised version of the Miramar resort, Taitung Incinerator, and the pharmaceutical money laundering controversies - but would maintain all three were supported by media references as well as court reports and are relevant to a description of Justin Huang's political life, similar to the way Watergate, for example, is relevant to a description of Richard Nixon's presidency. In terms of the work required in reducing the detail of Huang's involvement on Justin Huang's page and creating other linked articles to contain the details of these events, i would ask for the original material to be reinstated first so that it can be edited from that base of sourced information. I would also query whether Chongkian is a paid editor working for Justin Huang and/or government departments within Taiwan. --Before the Bang (talk)11:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Before the Bang, for your information, Wikipedia can be edited by basically anyone from around the world. Today can be me and tomorrow can be by another editor from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Canada, Kenya, Brazil, Russia, Fiji, Qatar, or even by an astronaut on board the International Space Station (provided that they have Internet connection up there), as simple as that. It doesn't have to be from Taiwan or paid editor, in which I am none of them. Basically when you want to write an article about something or someone, it has to be written in a fully structured way, complete, objective and with neutral point of view with all of the detailed information, this is a general rule for any article in Wikipedia. Generally, Justin Huang article has to be completely re-written to follow standard Wikipedia encyclopedic article. As part of politician, then the very first information about Justin Huang which are needed in the article are: his education background, his early career life (was he a politician straight away after graduation or no?), his early political life (how he entered politics? was it by legislative election or as an employee in any local government (e.g. Taitung County Government)?). Then as noted in his political history life, he was the member of National Assembly in 1996-2000. How did he entered that (through what election)? Then as member of Legislative Yuan in 2002-2009, he won during what legislative election and how was the election result (his votes, percentage, his opponents) etc, basically the same as the election result in which he was elected as Taitung County Magistrate in 2014. We still need to provide the election result on how he became the Taitung County Magistrate in 2009. These are still the vital information lacking from his article. Regarding his controversies, yes we can write any 'negative' things about someone in Wikipedia provided that it is provided by highly reliable third-party news sources and again, we write things objectively (e.g. (for example) Justin was convicted by Taitung district court on 5 March 2003 with the case regarding Bunun Resort development which involved the missing of $234 million funding during the development stage), something like that (only facts and figures). And any controversy has to follow any section of his article, e.g. is this controversies as part of him as Taitung County Magistrate, or as him as Legislative Yuan member, or as him in general (in which I dont think so, unless he is a very high profile criminal)? This article is about him, so try to limit on anything regarding to him which has relations with the resort scandal. What I saw previously in Justin's article, there is too much information about the resort itself, including (correct me if i'm wrong) some local demonstration (which was not done by him), some destruction to the incinerator by nature and its photo (which was not caused by him for sure and in the wreckage photo there is no Justin photo inside at all, which is completely irrelevant to Justin), incinerator was abandoned (then this is about the incinerator itself, not Justin abandoned the incinerator). Also in the article there are too many direct quotes (the ones written in italic with " signs). For your information, as we all know, quotes should be written in Wikiquotes, not Wikipedia, so there must be some complete re-writing of this article to be broken down into several sections and moved to other sections as well. And as a rule, every single quote needs to have its reference quoted. And in terms of "Christian lifestyle" section, it has to be moved to "personal life" section similar like other biography-related Wikipedia articles, especially regarding his marriage life, wife, maybe kids. So yeah, this has nothing to do as being a paid editor or someone working for Justin's behalf, it is completely 100% writing-style improvement/correction in Wikipedia. And also when writing about someone's biography article in Wikipedia, don't forget to complete/write their information in Wikidata, in which for Justin's is Q8274104. There are still some missing value information inside statement 'position held' for his former positions in the Legislative Yuan and the National Assembly. Such complete writing is really needed to build up a biography article in Wikipedia, in which it can easily improve one's class rating from stub, start, C and up to (at least) B-class. For all of those quotes by Justin, it's better to write them down in Wikiquote (make sure each quote has its own reference, with no alteration in the said words, unless some points which to be further clarified (or to avoid ambiguity) by adding extra information in brackets), and link his Wikiquote article with his Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons using his Wikidata page I've mentioned before. For your reference, if you need any template/style format to write about Justin's biography, you can always see other nicely written articles about Taiwan biography, such as Hung Hsiu-chu or Wang Jin-pyng, in which their life are written chronologically based on their political life stages (e.g. election, position, no quotes inside, etc). And yes, some controversies are still there (not completely deleted at all) written in those 2 articles. Another article that you have written on Wu Chun-li, you still need to add the WikiProject categorization for that article in the talk page (in which I have added already), and also in the main article page, please add an infobox for it, photo from Commons if any, his early life and education background, add link to any existing Wikipedia articles in the article body (e.g. KMT, Taitung County Magistrate (which links to "List of county magistrates of Taitung" article), his 2005 election, remove the Chinese name for any link which has its Wikipedia article already (e.g. Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), no need the "(馬英九)" wording anymore) etc, re-write those with quotes and italic wordings (e.g. “Wu told local reporters that he was innocent and he would continue his campaign after his release.”), add link to his Chinese name at the beginning of the article Wu (吳) to Wu (surname) and subsequently list down Wu Chun-li inside "Wu (surname)" article under the "Modern figures", etc. These steps are needed to improve the interlinking between articles in Wikipedia to create a mesh of knowledge with double-checking and verifications from different point of view kind-of-things. So, I hope these examples can give you some ideas on how to be a better Wikipedia editor, and of course feel free to improve any Wikipedia articles, especially those related to Taiwanese politicians or anything about Taitung County (buildings, tourism, history). If you need any help on the proper way to write Wikipedia articles, especially those related to Taiwan, you can always ask me or these three editors (Vycl1994, Lasersharp and ASDFGH), I think we are the most active editors for Taiwan-related articles (WikiProject Taiwan) in English Wikipedia. Cheers ~ :) Chongkian (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• (Coming after having read the Help Desk query.) I agree that the Miramar stuff that was reverted by Chongkian was far too detailed for that person's article, and it is not clear to me what should or should not be included. However, the removal of the pharmaceutical trial stuff was not justified, and Chongkian does not seem to defend it in the wall of text above; I therefore reinstated it (before that, the article had been completely whitewashed, even if it was not Chongkian's intention). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, my bad that I missed and overlooked the pharmaceutical trial stuff (because that is a small part out of the very largely written Miramar stuff). Yes, that part is completely ok to be reinstated because it has directly (and fully) related to Justin. Now I will try to improve Justin's article one by one (section per section, little by little) and write a full & complete explanation why such edit was done / needed to be done to improve this article :) Chongkian (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chongkian, thanks for replying. Firstly, you have stated that you haven't been paid to write wikipedia articles for Taiwanese politicians or companies and i accept your word and apologise for suggesting that you are/were a paid editor.

To summarise, you removed the following referenced material:

1. Justin Huang was found guilty of laundering money from pharmaceutical companies through his charity foundations. He was sentenced to jail but was allowed to convert this sentence to a fine. The 10-year court case spanned his time in the legislature through his two terms as Chief Magistrate.

2. Justin Huang’s controversial decision to compensate a subsidiary of Taiwan Cement NT1.96 billion for a white elephant incinerator. Huang devoted a chapter in his autobiography to this topic. There was prolonged, documented community and political protest against this decision.

3. Justin Huang was a vocal supporter of the illegally built Taitung Miramar Resort development throughout his 8-years as Taitung County Magistrate. This included initiating several failed court appeals. An EIA panel he set up was found to have been stacked with government officials and was ruled invalid by the supreme court. He then authorised the convening of a closed panel to compensate the builder of the illegal resort, Huang Chun-fa, who in turn has been convicted of financial crimes.

To verify the references, including media reports and official court reports, please see the deleted material. The references are too numerous and time-consuming to re-list here.

I understand that the above facts are not favourable to Justin Huang, but Wikipedia is not meant to function as a propaganda tool for certain public figures - even Jimmy Wales’s page contains unfavourable information. Imagine if he was sentenced to jail for laundering money through his foundations and that was deleted from his article. My understanding of Wikipedia editing is to reference everything to the hilt and ‘let the facts tell the story’.

I am happy to come to a compromise and condense the information to the bare facts. I encourage you to contribute more referenced information. But please don't delete large amounts of painstakingly referenced material without providing an explanation. It's not cool and it doesn't align with the Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. I am asking for the deleted material to be reinstated so that the sources can be verified. Then i and/or other editors can work to improve the content. I fully accept that it was not perfect, but that's normal actually. I do hope we can resolve this in the spirit of making verifiable information available to the reader, even if it is imperfectly structured or written, or not flattering to the subject. Before the Bang

--Gronk Oz (talk) --Tigraan (talk) Can i request some follow-up input on the dispute over the Justin Huang article? I am happy to condense the information, compromise, and/or add further references if required, but those three controversies (see above) are inextricably linked to Huang's political career - to have this referenced material whitewashed out seems contrary to Wikipedia's principles. (By way of context, Huang has had a 20-year political career, mostly recently 8 years as County Magistrate, which is roughly equivalent to a Governor in American politics.)

Can you also offer some guidance on using quotes from subjects. According to Chongkian: "For your information, as we all know, quotes should be written in Wikiquotes, not Wikipedia." Is that true? Are editors not allowed to include quotes from the subject in their articles? I have noticed quotes from subjects are often used in other wikipedia articles - for example, the Jimmy Wales article. In the interests of neutrality, i like to quote from 'the horse's mouth' wherever possible, so as to avoid the subjectivity that can creep in when an editor paraphrases a subject's remarks.

Thanks for your time to address these issues. I am relatively new to wikipedia but not new to research. I am interested in Taiwanese socio-politics. I want to work in a spirit of co-operation. It's frustrating when weeks of research is wiped without an adequate explanation. If you need further context about the three controversies then please let me know. Thanks. Before the Bang

In the earlier days of Wikimedia Foundation, only Wikipedia project existed; thus at that time, all of the photos, quotes about an article are all written inside Wikipedia. As time passes by and Wikimedia Foundation projects grew bigger, the Wikimedia Commons were invented. From that point, all of the photos originally uploaded to Wikipedia were transferred to Wikimedia Commons (it is an ongoing roll-out process over the years), so now you will see most of the photos are in Wikimedia Commons already, almost no more the 'photo gallery' section in Wikipedia. Since this is a continuous rolling out process, of course there are still some leftover photos in some of Wikipedia articles which have not been moved out to Wikimedia Commons. Same goes to Wikiquote. Before the creation of Wikiquote, all of the direct quote from the subject is directly written inside their Wikipedia page. After Wikiquote has been invented, then they start to roll out all of the quotes one by one to Wikiquote, therefore you will see there are still some leftover quotes in Wikipedia. But by right, all of the quotes (eventually) have to be written inside Wikiquote. Same like the language-interlinking between different language version of one Wikipedia article. Before the creation of Wikidata, we wrote manually for the different language version of that article inside that article's Wikipedia page (e.g. for Justin's Chinese language article it should be "zh:黃健庭" in the last section of his English-language Wikipedia article). But after Wikidata has been invented, then those syntax are no longer in used, because the interlinking is being done inside Wikidata page, thus all of those "zh:黃健庭" should be deleted as well (in a rolling out process also), that's why you might still encounter some of the not-so-updated pages still using that outdated syntax. This is purely the "programming code"-related matters in Wikipedia. And I think we shall not use the word "frustrating " when our works in Wikipedia is being "wiped out". Like I have said said earlier on, Wikipedia belongs to everyone, not any particular people or party. Everyone can edit it according to the rule of Wikipedia (unless you spam Wikipedia articles with all of the unverified information and with all of those bad words, then you might get blocked). If you wish your work not being "wiped out", you can always write all of your research in your own website or blog in which no one can touch it, but not in Wikipedia. And every work in Wikipedia is voluntary-basis, so we shall not feel (again) "frustrated" if our works do not fit the rules & regulation of Wikipedia. Me myself, I had more than 45 pages (yes you heart that right - Forty Five) completely deleted already (not just part off the text being deleted as your case, but the whole article being "completely erased"), and this is very normal. This is the rule of the game of Wikipedia. If I can't follow, then my works will get deleted/edited/amended/reverted. But from there, I start to build a better understanding on what Wikipedia is about, learning the inputs from other editors or taking the middle win-win way. From there, luckily now my other more than 2,020 articles are being kept inside Wikipedia. Once in a while, some of the articles got tagged for deletion (a complete deletion, not just deletion for some of the text inside), therefore I immediately try to improve it (rewrite, add more reference, update content etc). If I cant further defend or improve it, then that article got deleted straight away - just like that. Again, this is very normal in Wikipedia. For some rules of thumb, if we want to include some negative/controversial information about someone who is still alive (a.k.a. BLP (biography of a living person)) which might have some demeaning effect, all of the references for that Must come from a free, publicly-accessible, verifiable and public-domain sources, such as third party news website (in which we can easily click to open & read it), not some first-party books in which we can't even access it (try to find the free uploaded e-book version of it with no copyright violation) if you want to use such references. Chongkian (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)