Talk:Edison Chen photo scandal

message: No matter how many citations we can probably get for this article, it is a better fit for the main Edison Chen article. Also, WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Detailed coverage of this scandal would be intruding his privacy, but we can simply summarize it in the main Edison Chen article to indicate that this scandal indeed took place. Pandacomics (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But includes alot of artists also, isn't better to put a summary on thier pages, then link them here all in one place? Dengero (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I agree to this because I'm so sick and tired of modding Bobo, Cecilia, Gillian and Edison's pages that I gave up editing/reverting altogether. If we can just summarise the event in thier pages, link the main article here, then I could monitor those pages normally like before and revert anything that goes outside the summarization. Then our front could be closed to just here and let those million anon IP's vandlise all they want here. Dengero (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and there are actually more artists involved, just that the police in Hong Kong is still withholding information. Rayson 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. No not merge. This is a social issue. The police handling of the case adds to a long history of double standards where the police and the legal system does everything to protect local entertainment business at the expense of oversight in other areas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICEBreaker (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in this case, there should be information on how this impacts the judiciary system in Hong Kong. Like a "Cultural Impact" section or something. Pandacomics (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Why korean and Japanese references when this is a Hong Kong news? Dengero (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will find some more Chinese links, but this news is hot in Japan and Korea as well. Rayson 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The news is very hot now in South Korea, but the Japanese and Korean sources are too much put on the article.--Appletrees (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is worth putting some mention + references of international (meaning outside of HK I guess) impact because as it stands - it looks like right now this is a HK-only storm-in-a-teacup. 167.247.219.10 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The current title is Edison Chen's scandal of sex photos (2008). This is grammatically incorrect and should be retitled as Edison Chen's Sex Photos Scandal (2008).
I've renamed it "Edison Chen photo scandal".  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edison Chen caused a photo scandal a couple of years ago, so this title is not correct per se. The title should be any of these titles such as "Edison Chen's sex photo scandal", "The sex photo sandal of Edison Chen", or "Edison Chen photo scandal (2008)". He once said his most favorite sport is "sex", so Edison Chen's sex scandal is not adequate as well. --08:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of all that, I only agree on adding 2008 to the title. Dengero (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I read it from several Korean web portals, but you deleted the whole external links except English and Chinese sources. I don't know there is an English source for that. That photo scandal is about his photo revealing the lower part of his body. He really is a trouble maker. He is not that famous in South Korea, but Cecilia Cheung is. Supposed that this incident has nothing to do with her, Koreans might not care that much...Anyway, I agree to rename the article with 2008.--Appletrees (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah I deleted the entire External links section.  It only had one English-language site (which I believe was already used as a reference), the rest were in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.  I absolutely think non-English sources can and should be used for footnote references, but as External links, non-English sites are not very useful for readers of English WP and should be avoided per Wikipedia:External links.  But if the Korean sources verify some of the information on the article that need citation, please add them in as footnotes.  Anyway, back to the issue at hand.  What I meant was, is there a Wikipedia article for that other photo scandal?  If not, then there's really no need to disambiguate this article by specifying "2008" in the article name.  But like I said, if other editors feel strongly that it needs to be included in the title, then we can move the article name again.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Right, here has no article on his previous scandal, so this article keeps at the title name. --Appletrees (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Title 

message: We need to vigorously cite sources and possibly remove content that we can't back up.  This topic is about a developing sex scandal surrounding living persons, and we must be mindful of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons so that WP doesn't become liable to lawsuits because wrong or incorrect information was published.  Write in a way to be as neutral as possible, and back up all claims.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, should we really be referring to these as "photos of the actors" instead of "photos of people resembling the actors" or "photos of people believed by internet users to be the actors"? The HK newspapers this morning are still calling them "疑似女藝人裸照" and refer to the people in question not as "the actors in the photos" but "卷入事件的藝人". (Probably cuz their lawyers made them write it that way.) cab (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah good point.  I'll edit the article later to be careful of those kinds of wording (unless somebody else gets to it before I do).  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Note that the phrasing "people resembling the ...." is equally misleading. It suggests we know these are NOT the individuals involved, and we do not know that.  "Appeared to show ... " or 'people appearing to be ..." would be more accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.30.164 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: Seems to me that by mentioning the media's early statement (and the artists' representatives claims) that these were likely computer/Photoshop manipulations, but then not mentioning the media's later playing down of that position there is a danger of  (1) losing credibility and (b) suggesting that this is, in fact, the case. I work in HK media and can tell you that editors in my organisation made the decision four days ago NOT to refer to images as photoshopped any more. It would at least be reasonable to show the change. This article is not currently balanced. It appears skewed towards the "fake" side.
You may be doing this for "legal" reasons, but - given the number of people who have seen the photos - it does nothing to advance the credibility of the article, and strongly suggests a desire to make things look rather better than they are. 
It could also be pointed out that there are literally HUNDREDS of photo manipulations of HK artistes on the web that neither the police nor anyone else has cared about.  
Also, the reference to subjects wearing "underwear" in one set of photos is misleading and suggests rather less is going on than is actually the case. All that can be seen is a bra. The lower regions of the woman are blocked by one person's head.
As of this comment, a note that despite the police allegedly catching the suspects, more photos were released today. Two of them are clearly fakes. Two seem to belong to an earlier sequence. One is dubious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And your reference to that is...? Dengero (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of the appropriateness of giving a direct link. If you Google "kira" and "edison", you will see on the page that turns up another link to a page that has the new photos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  here's the report  as the reference of 6 February, 4 new photos leaked. The same day of bringing lawsuit of the suspected origin. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is making a claim either way. No Hong Kong newspaper or media organisation is currently claiming them to be fakes, particularly after the sequence of events by which they were acquired had been established. On legal advice, the two main English-language paprers are using the formulation "purportedly to be ..." or "purported to show ..." At the moment, particularly among those who've seen the photos, it's a much more controversial claim to suggest they are Photoshopped than otherwise. Given the number of fakes circulating with no police action, still unacknowledged by police, there clearly IS a reason why responses and interests this time are different. If you wish to avoid the issue, it is wiser not to debate authenticity at all rather than make a summary judgement on one side and mention only the possibility they were faked. To do so makes the article look biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKObservant (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *The WSJ article published yesterday (link) only uses the word "purportedly" once. It is clear that it no longer holds the position that the parties involved remain to be identified. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing 

message: This is English Wikipedia, and the image shows their name in Chinese character without any English caption. It needs to be converted to include their English names. --Appletrees (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:GoogleTrendsEdisonChenPhotoScandal.jpg]]

message: While there may be media fascination over the strict number of photos which have appeared, this is in much the same vein as the penis envy which I feel this case has evoked up to the present. Many of the photos are clearly of a sequence, and the more voluminous shots may have been "stilled" from video footage, so the number count is totally meaningless. As and when the video(s) appear, people can make their own still shots to their hearts' desire. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think there is here to envy? I'm not convinced that subjective psychological diagnosis of Chen's critics by any of us is relevant to this issue. People have known Chen's reputation, like Clooney's for a long time, and not been so condemning. It's all about the pics. I think the bigger question relates to voyeurism, treatment of the women (shooting yourself in a mirror?), filming of oneself and others, and being careful with the material. Potentially, several lives and careers have been damaged. However, the question is whether such a number WOULD have been released without (a) the initial claim they were fake (which the poster wanted to disprove), and (b) the possibly inappropriate police response. For that reason the number count is relevant. The Hong Kong servers were terrible yesterday despite the fact it was not a working day. No guesses what everyone was out looking for. It's true that most of the new ones appear to be video frames though. And after the initial shock of who was in them, there isn't much extra value to be gained from more freeze frames.
There is a contradiction. The text says that there are 465 pics. But on the date (found everywhere in the web) there is the number 1'300 pics. Can anybody help? All those who want to count look for a .torrent file about 陈冠希 and you can count. BTW, do we now know who is Kira? 84.75.210.113 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 465 = number of unique photos distributed on the web thus far. 1300 = approximate number of all sex pictures that were found on Edison's hard drive. And no, we don't know who Kira is yet. Pandacomics (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of photos

message: To Ohconfucius: I have reason to believe you are in breach of the three revert rule and ask you to desist in blanking sections of the talk page, in order to avoid discussion of content (diffs: 
). JSIN (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! Ohconfucius (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So are you, JSIN, you added back the contents despite the revert. So both of you are engaging in 3RR violation. (And remember that 2 wrongs don't make 1 right) OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3R]] warning

message: We will *not* link to any postings of the photos; assuming that they are copyrighted by the original photographer. Our policies strictly prohibit linking to any material which directly furthers the violation of copyrights. Any such links will be reverted and anyone adding such links is subject to being blocked. FCYTravis (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not at all "done", and I request that you kindly answer my queries, which I have made, many times. JSIN (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Well, you'll just have to excuse me. Otherwise, I feel there is a strong risk I may breach WP:CIVIL, and that just won't do, will it? ;-). Ohconfucius (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: JSIN The case made above by FCYTravis is clear. The copyright owner of these materials has made it clear in the video linked in the article that he has not given permission for these photos to be used in any way and has specifically requested for any copies of them to be deleted and for them not to be promulgated. That's all we need to know - Wiki does not knowingly link to material in clear breach of copyright. The fact that there are dozens of copies out on the internet (and tens of thousands of copies at least on other peoples' PCs) does not, legally, put them in the public domain.Paul Christensen (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto what above said (other than JSIN's comments). Having 1000 illegal copies on ther internet does not make the content released into public domain. Only the original photographer, that is Edison Chen, can release it into public domain. (But I can tell you this is never going to happen)  OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: screencaps I believe are treated somewhat differently in terms of copyrights that apply to them, due to the fact they are created by the person who made the screencap. Well, not the best explaination. Better to think of it like when you are photocopying a book. It is obviously wrong to photocopy the entire book, but it is perfectly legally fine to photocopy a handful of pages from the book. Likewise a screencap is not taking all the images from an entire movie file and the audio as well, but just one very very very very tiny piece of it. Lets put up a screencap or three, a bunch of them are that. Mathmo Talk 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's just one problem with your book analogy: the Edison Chen photos are not authorized for release by the owner. Books found at a library are authorized for release. As OhanaUnited indicated, a release of unauthorized content to the public does not give people the authority to use - whether they're the originals or rips such as reduction in resolution. Also remember that although English Wikipedia is housed in the U.S., fair use laws of Hong Kong or the U.S. do not apply on Wikipedia. For images to be approved as free by Wikimedia, there must be a claim made where the article's main premiss cannot be explained without photos. IMHO, I think the article can define itself without the photographs. Seeing a doctored-up photo of Edison and Gilian will add zero. Groink (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the removal of the zonaeuropa link in talking about images, I nevertheless believe it is a valuable resource in offering translations of Chinese newspaper articles. Much has been written in the Chinese press which has not appeared in the English language journals (including detailed interview/transcripts of what was said by Tang King-shing and Vincent Wong), so while some of the citations point to Chinese articles, it is undoubtedly useful for the non-Chinese audience who may want to check out the validity and correctness of the some of the citations, as well as read some of the jucier morsels of tabloid gossip which cannot be cited here. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo links 

message: Personally, I think the summary on Bobo, Gillan, Cecilia and Edison's page should be the same. A short, crisp, if-you-are-interested-please-click-link sort of summary. Like the one on Bobo Chan's page.
In January and February 2008 many explicit photos were found online involving Bobo Chan and Edison Chen. The  scandal also involved Gillian Chung and Cecilia Cheung.batgwa.com. "batgwa.com." Edison's Conquests Sex Photos – Suspect Arrested Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
Just change the words around for the other 3. Since the page is about the artists, this scandal shouldn't be too much into the page. If people are interested, they can always click on the main page for a whole lot more info. What do you say? 2 supports and I'll change them all. Dengero (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article summary on artists' respective pages. 

message: Three new pictures of Vincy Yeung (Albert Yeung's niece) surfaced showing her nude in the shower  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.150.178 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just publication. Even just possessing or taking the photos could be a crime in some countries. I have no idea if this applies to HK or Massachusetts but in some countries, Canada for example, it would be considered Child pornography. The fact that the person is over the age of consent for sexual intercourse doesn't mean that it's okay to take photos of the person having sex or in sexually suggestive poses. Both of the linked articles are useful. Note also that these laws apply to anyone located where they apply. So for example, regardless of the copyright issues possesing photos depicting sexually suggestive poses or intercourse or a person under the age of 18 would be illegal for all Canadian residents regardless of what HK or Massachusetts law says about these photos. Of course this is all OR but it's worth bearing in mind nevertheless that the fact the intercourse was legal doesn't mean the photos are. P.S. From what I can tell federal US law means pornography of anyone under the age of 18 is child pornography. The only question would be whether it would be considered pornography since comments above suggest it's simply nudity in the shower without necessarily being sexually suggestive. P.S. 2 Of course it's fairly rare for the police to bother to go after people for taking photos for personal viewing when the intercourse was legal Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vincy Yeung 

message: Once this event is over, reckon we can push it to GA? It's quite well sourced as per now, and if we keep it up, it's not a bad thought. Dengero (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Case is adjourned to Feb 22.  This is still on going. Benjwong (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Push for GA 

message: Some one change the statics on this page. Source http://coolsmurf.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/more-revealing-pictures-of-gillian-and-cecilia-released/
--Angelwhite01 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change statics's 

message: Pardon my rant, but why are some of the sentences so freaking long. Pandacomics (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you are bothered to change it into past tense after the event, sure, why not use present tense. Dengero (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because February 8 passed by a while ago. Likewise with all the other dates that aren't today. However, if a certain event is ongoing (e.g. the 29-year-old being held in custody), then you can use the perfect tense. The general idea is that by the time news comes out, the event will have passed long ago, which would require use of a past tense (simple or perfect past). Pandacomics (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  run ons, like this, and this, and this 

message: I don't think the citation and paragraph re sniper is directly relevant although it was mistaken for a swipe by Edison at the publication of photos. I am therefore deleting it per WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Block deletion

message: Why is someone so insistent on the current format of the table indicating the latest number of photos online? The evolution of photographs which has been a matter of great interest is now gone; and the full names in Cantonese pinyin and simplified Chinese has also reappeared. Are these full names necessary? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of simplified is pretty useless. The Google Trends chart only goes by the Traditional script. Pandacomics (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I put the Cantonese pinyin names there, and they have been helpful for me when discussing with Cantonese friends about the scandal. I can't read Chinese but they know at least some of the people by their Cantonese name not the English one, even when talking in English... (Gillian and Edison tend to be known by their English names even by Cantonese, but Cecilia seems to be much better known as Pak-Chi). Is it really a big deal to have them there?Paul Christensen (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *No, by all means put one back, or how about putting these in the lead? There will be less clutter in the table. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Table format

message: Can we agree whether the Police should be presented as singular or plural noun, as it "The Police is" vs "The Police are"? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well assuming this article is making use of Hong Kong English, I'd probably go with "are". "Police are investigating the disappearance of an 18-year-old male." Yeah, makes sense. Pandacomics (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The police

message: News has it that the 1st picture of Edison posted on the internet is an indecent (不雅) article, not an obscene (淫褻) article.
The law relating to these 2 types of classification is very different. Let's look at that in the below attached section.
This means that, while Obscene 淫褻 article carries a maximum sentence of 3 years, Indecent article only carries a maximum sentence of 12 months.
So... what's the big deal? It's a huge deal.
First. If the police have a arresting warrant for the 1st guy they caught, that means the court have issued a charge for arresting this man before the photo is classified. It means any charges made were based on heresay and were not based on correct procedures.
However if the arrest was made without a warrant, this is only legal if the Police reasonably believes the suspect is involved in an arrestable offenses under Common Law.
Lets assume the Police have a reasonable believe for now. (It may be that their  assumption is not reasonable in the 1st place)
An arrestable offence is one which carries a maximum sentence exceeding 12 months.
So Mr. Chung is held in custody for 8 weeks, charged with a crime in which he did not commit (Obscene Publication), and if they change the charge to Indecent Publication, then the Police have illegally arrested Mr. Chung.
Furthermore, Mr. Chung have not been protected by the HKSAR Bill or Rights Ordinance (BORO) in which article 11 clearly states presumption of innocence, part 2a) to be informed promptly of his charges and part 2c) to be tried without undue delay.
While we as public do not know if Article 11, part 2g) is relevant to Mr Chung's case (not to be compelled...to confess guilt), we can only try to imagine how we would feel to have 100 cops arresting coming after us to arrest us. 
What should REALLY concern us is.... How a normal person like me, un-trained in legal profession. Not educated in law, can find out about these laws, while those who are SUPPOSED to be good in the legal community, i.e. Police, Lawyers and JUDGES, can totally miss out on noting these issues?!
Trust me, just try and find HK bill of rights in Google and you'd probably find a lot more information than which I've provided.
Now, if the police can illegally detain people (arrestable offenses) and the judges can hold them without charges for 8 weeks, can't it happen to anyone of us?! 
This is worse than article 23! This IS practically enacting article 23 without passing the law. Or is it just a case of Police being able to get away with a criminal act (illegally detaining a suspect) ?
And if there was a warrant to arrest him, isn't it proven now that the warrant is based on false believes? (Obscene vs Indecent classification)
Doesn't this mean that now the government have opened a loophole for Mr Chung to sue for damages (BORO Article 11 part 5) ?
And if successful, doesn't it mean that, because the police and the judge were not applying the laws properly when they should have, we as the tax-payers have to foot the bill for their errors?!
Is that how our Tax is being spent? On hiring these cops and judges and paying for errors?!
:: I can't believe the amount of absurdities that is written here. All along the court has been applying the law correctly, it's just that the statutory scheme itself is problematic.
:: At present, there is NO legal requirement that an article has to be classified before prosecution is proceeded with. In fact, the prevalent practice is to charge first and then ask the Obscene Article Tribunal (OAT) for classification later. The Control of Indecent and Obscene Articles Ordinance does not provide for this and does not prohibit this. The only requirement is that the police must have reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed the offence in question. Therefore, the law itself is problematic, but it is applied correctly by the courts.
:: For any arrest warrant to be issued, only a probable cause has to be shown. Issuing a warrant before a photo is classified has nothing wrong with it has long as the magistrate is satisfied there is a probable cause the person to be arrested has committed the crime in question. There is no requirement that the suspicion be proved before issuing the warrant is issued, because that's in most cases impossible.
:: Then, you get the concept of arrestable offence hopelessly wrong. The concept of arrestable offence applies only to citizens: the police has a greater power to arrest under s.50 of the Police Force Ordinance which allows them to arrest anyone as long as there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law.
:: Under the current law, there is nothing wrong with holding someone in custody for a crime that it turned out he did not commit, provided that there is reasonable suspicion. That's the point of having a trial isn' it? A trial is to determine if someone is guilty or not! Your fallacy lies in presupposing we can determine if someone actually committed a crime before bringing him to court! That's absurd! One can harbour reasonable suspicion that someone committed a crime, but cannot be sure unless the court pronounces him so. This is exactly the presumption of innocence in practice. If it's subsequently shown that the police did not harbour reasonable suspicion, the aggrieved person can sue the police for damages. To appreciate this, one has to differentiate between custody and imprisonment, which are two different legal concepts.
:: The right to be informed of one's charges is clearly not engaged in this case. I'm sure the defendant was notified, it's standard procedure that I've never heard that has not been followed. There is also nothing to suggest the arrested man had been charged with undue delay. Due to practicalities (you have no idea how congested the courts are and the need of time for investigation), I would say 8 weeks is quick judging by normal standards. That's why the word "undue" was inserted to take account of the practicalities. However, it is quite dubious why bail was refused in the first place. But judges are normally happy to follow the advice of the prosecution because the prosecution has the evidence in hand.
:: Therefore, this teaches us the lesson not to start accusing before getting our concepts right. It shows how a normal person, un-trained in legal profession, can hopelessly misunderstand the law.
:: I have deleted the line about the presumption of innocence. After checking the references, I am convinced Tim Hamlett's legal concepts were flawed, and as he was not legally trained, his legal opinion ought to be treated as unreliable sources.Craddocktm (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Charges laid

message: Note, I haven't deleted this paragraph yet as I believe discussion should be in place first.  Why is such biased, anti-police language used in this instance?  There's already a separate section later on criticizing the police actions.  The introduction should be there to present the basic facts, not introducing one side's opinion (without the other) already!!!  
PS If nobody replies to this within 72 hours I shall delete the 'aforementioned' paragraph.  Jsw663 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, not replying within 72 hours does not give you the right to delete the paragraph. Sure, being bold is nice, but as this article covers a frequently-edited current event, you can't assume that no one will make a comment about it. Thanks for the tone-down, but the paragraph acts as a summary for community response to police actions. The lead, in fact, acts as a summary for all angles covered in the main content section of the article. (see: WP:LEAD) As for "one side's opinion (without the other)", if you can find sources defending police actions, go right ahead. After that, you can add it in to the lead using summary style. Pandacomics (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Tone it down, by all means. It is customary to have text in the lead section which summarises the main points of the remaining article, so deletion maybe be a bit draconian. I think deletion of the third sentence of the paragraph would be OK, but the gist of the other two sentences should remain. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction, 3rd paragraph 

message: Why isn't her name anywhere in the article? TheAsianGURU (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not entirely a rumor. The story and investigation is already out there. I don't know if the Hong Kong news outlets have reported on it or not as I can't read Chinese well enough. Arsonal (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, Kira can say anything he wants. As of this writing, no photos of Maggie Q have surfaced. Wikipedia guidelines doesn't allow for speculation. Groink (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The rumors are not true.Dumaka (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Maggie Q?

message: This page gets around 10 IP edits per day, I see IP Edit RV all the time, Semi-Protection (No IP Edit) is needed. What do you guys think? TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Dengero (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, like I mentioned it in talk Project H.K.‎, I don't know how it's done. Does it have to be done by an admin? This needs to take action fast. I can already feel it...TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Make an request here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengero (talk • contribs) 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx. Requested. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, they didn't "Decline" my request either...seems like it's just lost......Anyway, I think there will be massive IP edits to come, since the case is going to settle sometime in the future. Well, we'll see. TheAsianGURU (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page needs Semi-Protection

message: Maybe I missed something - Did Kira actually post anything (ie photos)? There has been much attention in some of the Chinese press based on Kira talk on blogs etc about what he/she would do. However, there is a dearth of reliable information, and I am tending to believe that Kira may be just an elaborate hoax. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Kira was the nickname given to the source of the photos. The source may be a single person or a group of people. The people doing the distribution may be Kira or someone close to them. We don't know at the moment. F (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kira

message: Any clinical description of the contents of the photos, which were never intended for public release, and the private sex acts shown, appears to be a violation of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, which states (under Presumption in favor of privacy):
"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." 128.218.20.78 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, all your edits are sexual related scandals. UCSF's bandwidth is put in good use here. Look, my tax dollar at work people!!!! TheAsianGURU (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  clinical discussion of photo contents goes against Wikipedia's BLP policy 

message: Does this set some sort of record? F (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what paper, and a reference. Dengero (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently more consecutive days headline coverage than SARS - a couple of the references (chinese wikipedia / here?) have the stats. 167.247.219.10 (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  22 days in the headlines 

message: I don't see this in the sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "An u(n)named female staff member at Baidu posted the images"

message: Does anyone think that the links in the see also section doesn't really relate to this incident, especially the top-10 bribing one? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define "relate"?  Benjwong (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The common denominator appears to be Albert Yeung, but that's about all. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like celebrity incidents around similar groups of people. Benjwong (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also? 

message: Not all that relevant from what I can see.... commercial websites get hacked all the time, and I don't see anything in the source which indicates how it may be relevant to the Edison story, so the relationship is rather tenuous. Also the fact that someone posted malware disguised as photos/videos is even more tenuously connected to EEG. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was removed. Benjwong (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallout for EEG?

message: The following text was removed; 'In the early hours on Chinese New Year's eve, several hundred more photographs with two new faces appeared on the Internet, as promised, **in effect cocking a snoot at the Hong Kong Police**'
I know what cocking a snoot is meant to mean, but I don't think average Wiki users are going to understand. Also it's very un encyclopaedic language and POV. Shaybear♥  —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it offensive, you commented upon it and then removed the section? These women can re-invented themselves as AV actresses, and not be short of an acting career. 86.178.78.165 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The actresses are not prostitutes. They're not celebrated as such. And, they don't go out of their way to make themselves out to be prostitutes. The entertainment media in Hong Kong is modeled after the very extreme British paparazzi. And, like the British media, the HK media is obsessed over sex scandals, mostly because of demand by the subscribers. It isn't just actresses. Politicians and other dignitaries also make headlines whenever a video or series of photos are leaked out. And, it isn't even just HK. Many of other Asian countries' media are obsessed over these kinds of stories. I think what makes these kinds of scandals stick out is that many Asian cultures basically taboo sexuality. And, like many other things, the more restrictive the content, the more people crave for that kind of stuff. Groink (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: Is that really the best title for that section?  207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bubbling Under"? 

message: I haven't really been following this, but it appears that Sze Ho-Chun, who was investigated back in February 2008 for this, has been found guilty and is going to be sentenced:
*
Not sure if it's too early to update the article or anything, just figured I should throw this out there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I think it's about time for a rewrite of this article. It has gone past the growth phase and should consolidate. It has developed as events unfolded, and reads like a news article. I will be taking a top-down approach, restructuring sections first, and then excising excessive detail from the article. Any thoughts?Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forthcoming rewite 

message: Is there an attitude among HK people that "actresses" and female "models" and "singers" are prostitutes? Does this scandal confirm that HK actresses below the surface are prostitutes? 86.176.189.197 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it offensive, you commented upon it and then removed the section? These women can re-invented themselves as AV actresses, and not be short of an acting career. 86.178.78.165 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The actresses are not prostitutes. They're not celebrated as such. And, they don't go out of their way to make themselves out to be prostitutes. The entertainment media in Hong Kong is modeled after the very extreme British paparazzi. And, like the British media, the HK media is obsessed over sex scandals, mostly because of demand by the subscribers. It isn't just actresses. Politicians and other dignitaries also make headlines whenever a video or series of photos are leaked out. And, it isn't even just HK. Many of other Asian countries' media are obsessed over these kinds of stories. I think what makes these kinds of scandals stick out is that many Asian cultures basically taboo sexuality. And, like many other things, the more restrictive the content, the more people crave for that kind of stuff. Groink (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are HK actresses regarded as prostitutes? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Edison Chen photo scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080207045857/http://www.batgwa.com:80/story.php?id=569 to http://batgwa.com/story.php?id=569
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080208060301/http://batgwa.com:80/story.php?id=581 to http://batgwa.com/story.php?id=581
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Edison Chen photo scandal. 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/20121226064747/http://paper.wenweipo.com:80/2008/02/01/YO0802010004.htm to http://paper.wenweipo.com/2008/02/01/YO0802010004.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819062918/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61938&sid=17712230&con_type=5&d_str=20080222&sear_year=2008 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61938&sid=17712230&con_type=5&d_str=20080222&sear_year=2008
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.singpao.com/20080204/local/945111.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208114808/http://ent.xmnext.com:80/star/2008/01/30/1037989.html to http://ent.xmnext.com/star/2008/01/30/1037989.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207024802/http://www.asiaone.com:80/Just+Woman/News/Celebrities/Story/A1Story20080204-48059.html to http://www.asiaone.com/Just%2BWoman/News/Celebrities/Story/A1Story20080204-48059.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215115026/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61393&sid=17552751&con_type=3&d_str=20080212&sear_year=2008 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61393&sid=17552751&con_type=3&d_str=20080212&sear_year=2008
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212053739/http://hk.news.yahoo.com:80/080211/12/2omv3.html to http://hk.news.yahoo.com/080211/12/2omv3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080301211006/http://hk.news.yahoo.com:80/080226/60/2pism.html to http://hk.news.yahoo.com/080226/60/2pism.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://chinanews.sina.com/ent/2008/0226/20042567536.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205114504/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61047&sid=17388462&con_type=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61047&sid=17388462&con_type=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206221332/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61190&sid=17445450&con_type=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61190&sid=17445450&con_type=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208022328/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61211&sid=17457495&con_type=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61211&sid=17457495&con_type=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214173124/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61433&sid=17567136&con_type=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61433&sid=17567136&con_type=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211000242/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=13&art_id=61919&sid=17710300&con_type=1&d_str=20080222&sear_year=2008 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=13&art_id=61919&sid=17710300&con_type=1&d_str=20080222&sear_year=2008
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225174159/http://afp.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gXyLYfldmD2Fu41RmVQPw0ltAbXg to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXyLYfldmD2Fu41RmVQPw0ltAbXg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227042323/http://nownews.com:80/2008/02/24/138-2235620.htm to http://www.nownews.com/2008/02/24/138-2235620.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211005101/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=61583&sid=17606869&con_type=1&d_str=20080215&sear_year=2008 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=61583&sid=17606869&con_type=1&d_str=20080215&sear_year=2008
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203040555/http://life.mingpao.com/cfm/dailynews3b.cfm?File=20080214/nalga/gaa1.txt to http://life.mingpao.com/cfm/dailynews3b.cfm?File=20080214/nalga/gaa1.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604120213/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=21&art_id=78647&sid=22842870&con_type=1&d_str=20090224&sear_year=2009 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=21&art_id=78647&sid=22842870&con_type=1&d_str=20090224&sear_year=2009
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019140813/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=82127&sid=23844310&con_type=1&d_str=20090514&sear_year=2009 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=82127&sid=23844310&con_type=1&d_str=20090514&sear_year=2009
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215115021/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61320&sid=17539319&con_type=3&d_str=20080211&sear_year=2008 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61320&sid=17539319&con_type=3&d_str=20080211&sear_year=2008
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-hksex27feb27,1,6641296.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604120612/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=79431&sid=23068912&con_type=3&d_str=20090312&sear_year=2009 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=79431&sid=23068912&con_type=3&d_str=20090312&sear_year=2009
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215141303/http://olympics.scmp.com/Article.aspx?id=3262§ion=latestnews to http://olympics.scmp.com/Article.aspx?id=3262§ion=latestnews
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305064613/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61750&sid=17661261&con_type=1&d_str=20080219&sear_year=2008 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61750&sid=17661261&con_type=1&d_str=20080219&sear_year=2008
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302075805/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=61867&sid=17694181&con_type=1&d_str=20080221&sear_year=2008 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=61867&sid=17694181&con_type=1&d_str=20080221&sear_year=2008
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Edison Chen photo scandal. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://paper.wenweipo.com/2008/02/01/YO0802010004.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205040310/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61125&sid=17431562&con_type=3 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61125&sid=17431562&con_type=3
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ent.xmnext.com/star/2008/01/30/1037989.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asiaone.com/Just%2BWoman/News/Celebrities/Story/A1Story20080204-48059.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://batgwa.com/story.php?id=581
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61393&sid=17552751&con_type=3&d_str=20080212&sear_year=2008
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hk.news.yahoo.com/080226/60/2pism.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61047&sid=17388462&con_type=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61190&sid=17445450&con_type=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61211&sid=17457495&con_type=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61433&sid=17567136&con_type=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=13&art_id=61919&sid=17710300&con_type=1&d_str=20080222&sear_year=2008
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXyLYfldmD2Fu41RmVQPw0ltAbXg
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nownews.com/2008/02/24/138-2235620.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=61583&sid=17606869&con_type=1&d_str=20080215&sear_year=2008
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://life.mingpao.com/cfm/dailynews3b.cfm?File=20080214%2Fnalga%2Fgaa1.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215200804/http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/14/665099.aspx to http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/14/665099.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61320&sid=17539319&con_type=3&d_str=20080211&sear_year=2008
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61750&sid=17661261&con_type=1&d_str=20080219&sear_year=2008
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=61867&sid=17694181&con_type=1&d_str=20080221&sear_year=2008
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified