Just a point, isn't it an obvious omission in the article that Yee's video also included disparaging remarks about Christians? After all, that's what he is being charged for, and many news articles about the video also mention this. Granted it is primarily an anti-KY video, but to not mention the Christian angle at all seems odd. Currently its written like he is being charged for something totally irrelevant. [1] [2] [3] Zhanzhao ( talk) 07:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be good to have his birth date. I've seen sources in the past week post conflicting information, some say he's 16, some say he's 17. But a Jan 2012 source said he was 14 back then. New York Times in 2015 said 17, then changed to 16 - if so, the 2012 sources are wrong. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Someone nominate this before 6 March, Monday. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary to actually list down the publications that covered this news? That it is newsworthy is undeniable, so a simple line saying that it was picked by by the international press, with links instead of explicitly listing the individual agencies should be sufficnet. Now it just bloats the length of the article needlessly. Zhanzhao ( talk) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This is about the line under "Responses about the appeal. Considering that even though it was covered by the news, it was not particularly notable. More importantly Amos was since released on bail, its a little confusing to leave it as it is. Not sure how to improve on it though. Any suggestions? Zhanzhao ( talk) 23:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nathan Heller's comments have been given undue weight in this article. Do note that Nathan Heller wrote an opinionated piece in The New Yorker, not a factual news article. I've shortened the statement, but it probably needs to be even more concise or even removed. -- 2001:630:12:1008:8CF1:AE3E:6E00:F0B8 ( talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, how about this, looks like the Parody continues: Man strikes Amos Yee as teen arrives at court - -- Never stop exploring ( talk) 14:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted several of @ Stochas:' recent edits on the basis of core content policies WP:OR and WP:RS, which should be read. Simply put, content not backed up by any source, or content backed up by unreliable sources, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Please also read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
The notion that there wouldn't be an alternative point of view if we do not accept TOC and TRE as reliable sources. There are always two sides two a coin, to remain neutral, due weight must be given to the other side. is totally flawed. We are not required to lower our standards for reliable sources just to publish what "the other side" are saying. WP:NPOV does not mean 50% positive and 50% negative. In most cases, that would be false balance, read WP:GEVAL from WP:NPOV. If you don't like Singaporean media, use international media. I believe within the past week, Australian Broadcasting Corporation [10] and Xinhua [11] had articles on Yee. Those are the alternative sources. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In a separate discussion, the notion that Straits Times did false reporting is quite false. Straits Times [12] wrote that Yee was declared by his mother to be beyond her control ... made a police report to that effect. Meanwhile, the Online Citizen, [13] who interviewed Yee's mother, reported that the reason for filing the police report was because at that point in time, Amos had just published a vulgar image despite her objections and she feared for Amos’s safety. Straits Times was right. She couldn't control him, he uploaded the picture, so she had to make the report. Online Citizen also said she asked on where her son could be put through counselling. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that she needs a third party to guide her son because she can't control him herself. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to explain my revert of Deffydaft's removal. All the content removed are from newspapers of Singapore and Malaysia - they pass WP:RS - and are negative opinions regarding Yee's video. Deffydaft claims that these are " fringe theories". To that, I question, where is the proof that a positive opinions of Kuan Yew is finally dead! is mainstream? Any sources? Just take a look at the YouTube likes and dislikes. 3,905 likes, 16,908 dislikes. Clearly, liking the video is the fringe here! starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. Disliking a video does not translate to disliking a person. Also, you have not demonstrated that the specific opinions expressed by MediaCorp artists on his parents are mainstream opinions. You have only proven that the video is unpopular. That's all. I will follow up to address your other comments when I have time. Deffydaft ( talk) 16:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I know this is big news night now, right here, but I feel that we might need to trim some fat off the article, especially the trivial details. I.e. Do we really need to know the name of his grandmother (which I removed) or even the exact prizes he won from the competition? Zhanzhao ( talk) 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Also another thing to point out is that many parts of the article which can only be sourced to Amos himself or involved parties are being written as if they were fact i.e. the part about him being asked to leave church was a statement from Amos himself but not made clear in the article. Such that when the catholic church refutes that statement, the article as it is right now, makes it seem as if the church was covering up when for having really asking him to leave (unproven) and it is just two claims by 2 different parties (Amos and the church). Examples like this (statements by parties written as if they were fact) should be carefully treated to ensure the article stays neutral. Zhanzhao ( talk) 21:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Original text as I read it:
"A third charge, later stood down, was under the Protection of Harassment Act, which accuses him of "making an online video containing remarks about Mr Lee that offended people who viewed it."
"Of" is not correct. It should be "From". See this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Harassment_Act_2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.200.239.210 ( talk) 04:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A case should not be extensively covered on the main biography of Amos Yee. Otherwise, it would be disproportionate coverage. I hereby propose splitting the "2015 controversy" section into a separate article, maybe Public Prosecutor v Amos Yee or some other appropriate name. Feel free to discuss. HYH.124 ( talk) 12:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Zhanzhao: Yes, but he is already a notable person for his biography to be included on Wikipedia. Also, you cannot doubt that he isn't notable before this incident. HYH.124 ( talk) 01:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Just saw these [15], [16], [17] and [18] while researching for an unrelated wiki article. Wondering if this is notable enough to be included. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Amos Yee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like help improvce this page
2404:E800:E60B:58E:303E:FD0E:C38D:31D3 ( talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This heading, for the benefit of those coming in to help with Third Opinion
Just like to point out Yee himself had admitted that the allegations were false, made in an attempt to troll the media. This admission was covered in multiple sources including Yahoo, TheOnlineCitizen, Vulcanpost among others, and even in his own blog where he admitted it. All these sources considered, cover primary, secondary, and even tertiary sourcing categories. So now that verifiability should no longer be an issue, I would instead point out that the old heading is a BLP issue as the heading is misleadingly unfair to the bailor, by not pointing out it was a false allegation while leaving his name there. (PS: Correction on my edit summary on the main article. The term to search for is "Amos Yee Trolled Vincent Law", not "Amos Yee Trolled Francis Law". Here's a few examples where the headings also clearly pointing out false/disproven allegations.
Where there is no question about the truthfulness (or in the case, lack thereof) of the original allegation, stating that it is not true should be perfectly acceptable and fair to the wrongly accused. Zhanzhao ( talk) 14:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on molestation allegations relevance and section title): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Amos Yee and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Zhanzhao considers that the article's section on molestation allegations should be clear in pointing out that these were false, per WP:BLP. Lemongirl considers that the status quo title should prevail, but also questions the section's relevance (and proposed its removal from the article). It seems to me that this information is relevant as it pertains to the case that is the central focus of Amos Yee's article. We do need to consider WP:BLP since both of the individuals in question are alive, and clearly their reputation is on the line here. In this sense, I agree with Zhanzhao. However, I value Lemongirl's statement on WP:RECENT, and do recommend that this always be kept in mind with "celebrities" that seem to rely on scandals for notability. Moreover, I also agree with Lemongirl's assertion that "The level of detail btw, is a general problem with this article". This section, in particular, is excessively descriptive, so I would recommend it to be made more concise per points 2 and 4 on WP:NOTNEWS (i.e., material should not read like a news report). As for the section title, it seems awfully unnecessary to have any mention of the bailor in it at all; I recommend that the section be titled "Molestation allegations" (the term "allegation" covering the point that this is a claim and not necessarily true). Thank you for requesting a third opinion. Have a great week!-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 23:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, the term activist was inserted by an anon IP, amos? Some news may attribute him wrongly as activist but almost all news I read mentions himas just a blogger, big difference. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.99.159 ( talk) 14:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree that a misleading report by one Afp reporter (out of hundreds of others) should not be taken as fact. Need to remove that description. 219.74.87.159 ( talk) 12:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Glaringly, to date, the article just barely mentions the videos and posts which Yee disparages Muslims, which was part of what he was charged and found guilty off? Considering that sentence, at 6 weeks, was even heavier than the first? Zhanzhao ( talk) 00:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Zhanzhao: I have reverted it back to the original status quo of chronological coverage. BLP is very clear on the fact that we don't give undue focus whether by creating a new section or the depth of coverage. This is will require consensus to change. I can post at the BLPN and ask for opinions if you want. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Zhanzhao:, the part on Yee being uninvited from Mythcon 2017 should be put on hold per WP:RECENTISM. Also, if this is notable, you can wait for a secondary news source before adding it in. To me, this whole section seems trivia, and you had complained before that the article is getting bloated. In any case, I am not going to revert your edits, assuming good faith on your part. Jane Dawson ( talk) 05:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Jane Dawson ( talk) 05:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This has been here for years and was major news for several weeks in local and international news media until the slapper was sentenced to a jail term. It can be summarised but should not be removed as trivia. 203.117.121.236 ( talk) 11:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The article on this guy is ridiculously bias to present this guy positively. The first two paragraphs are redundant to the section "Video criticizing Lee Kuan Yew " Where is the information on this guys support of pedophilia and child pornography? and him being kicked out of his home for opinions on pedophilia. 1 2 3 There is even around 10 videos on this on his youtube page and not a mention.-- Cs california ( talk) 23:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzVaeodnam0 This is the citation of him, in his own words, defending incest and pedophilia. I tried adding it, but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4000:AA60:39C4:A203:C5E4:F0BE ( talk) 17:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering he has been sanctioned by Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, I'd think it warrants a separate heading by itself. Its no longer an isolated one-off incidental event. Also considering social media (especially Youtube) was how he got famous in the first place. Zhanzhao ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Stochas -- in this diff, and restored by you in this diff, you added an entire subsection on an incident where Yee was slapped.
Please note the tag on the top of the page about excessive detail; this tag is apt, as the amount of detail about this person is excessive and the page needs trimming, not expansion with yet more trivia and diary-like entries. Please do also see WP:NOT generally, and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS. Just because there are sources for something doesn't mean we include it. Jytdog ( talk) 13:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Universe ( talk) 03:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
What is mothership.sg? It looks like a blog. It said the author of one of the articles "knows how to pronounce 'tchotchke'" so I would doubt the journalistic credentials of someone like that in a place like that. Also, what is the "Malay Mail Online"? Is that a ripoff of the Daily Mail? If they are under the same umbrella, or perhaps even if it aspires to be the muckracker like the original, we need to kill it with fire. Elizium23 ( talk) 12:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a current RFC on certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that editors watching/editing/passing through this article may be interested in weighing in: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. This article may be affected due to the inclusion of Category:Singaporean actors and/or one of its subcategories in the article. RobertskySemi ( talk) 23:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Nobody has given a name of a particular federal courthouse, federal judge, federal prosecutor, etc. involved in the case and the case doesnt seem to be in PACER so I'm not sure these are really federal charges.
However, he does show up on the Chicago inmate locator so we know he is indeed in jail. 2600:1003:B1A8:2BFE:0:0:F4E7:1E01 ( talk) 23:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a point, isn't it an obvious omission in the article that Yee's video also included disparaging remarks about Christians? After all, that's what he is being charged for, and many news articles about the video also mention this. Granted it is primarily an anti-KY video, but to not mention the Christian angle at all seems odd. Currently its written like he is being charged for something totally irrelevant. [1] [2] [3] Zhanzhao ( talk) 07:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be good to have his birth date. I've seen sources in the past week post conflicting information, some say he's 16, some say he's 17. But a Jan 2012 source said he was 14 back then. New York Times in 2015 said 17, then changed to 16 - if so, the 2012 sources are wrong. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Someone nominate this before 6 March, Monday. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary to actually list down the publications that covered this news? That it is newsworthy is undeniable, so a simple line saying that it was picked by by the international press, with links instead of explicitly listing the individual agencies should be sufficnet. Now it just bloats the length of the article needlessly. Zhanzhao ( talk) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This is about the line under "Responses about the appeal. Considering that even though it was covered by the news, it was not particularly notable. More importantly Amos was since released on bail, its a little confusing to leave it as it is. Not sure how to improve on it though. Any suggestions? Zhanzhao ( talk) 23:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nathan Heller's comments have been given undue weight in this article. Do note that Nathan Heller wrote an opinionated piece in The New Yorker, not a factual news article. I've shortened the statement, but it probably needs to be even more concise or even removed. -- 2001:630:12:1008:8CF1:AE3E:6E00:F0B8 ( talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, how about this, looks like the Parody continues: Man strikes Amos Yee as teen arrives at court - -- Never stop exploring ( talk) 14:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted several of @ Stochas:' recent edits on the basis of core content policies WP:OR and WP:RS, which should be read. Simply put, content not backed up by any source, or content backed up by unreliable sources, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Please also read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
The notion that there wouldn't be an alternative point of view if we do not accept TOC and TRE as reliable sources. There are always two sides two a coin, to remain neutral, due weight must be given to the other side. is totally flawed. We are not required to lower our standards for reliable sources just to publish what "the other side" are saying. WP:NPOV does not mean 50% positive and 50% negative. In most cases, that would be false balance, read WP:GEVAL from WP:NPOV. If you don't like Singaporean media, use international media. I believe within the past week, Australian Broadcasting Corporation [10] and Xinhua [11] had articles on Yee. Those are the alternative sources. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In a separate discussion, the notion that Straits Times did false reporting is quite false. Straits Times [12] wrote that Yee was declared by his mother to be beyond her control ... made a police report to that effect. Meanwhile, the Online Citizen, [13] who interviewed Yee's mother, reported that the reason for filing the police report was because at that point in time, Amos had just published a vulgar image despite her objections and she feared for Amos’s safety. Straits Times was right. She couldn't control him, he uploaded the picture, so she had to make the report. Online Citizen also said she asked on where her son could be put through counselling. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that she needs a third party to guide her son because she can't control him herself. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to explain my revert of Deffydaft's removal. All the content removed are from newspapers of Singapore and Malaysia - they pass WP:RS - and are negative opinions regarding Yee's video. Deffydaft claims that these are " fringe theories". To that, I question, where is the proof that a positive opinions of Kuan Yew is finally dead! is mainstream? Any sources? Just take a look at the YouTube likes and dislikes. 3,905 likes, 16,908 dislikes. Clearly, liking the video is the fringe here! starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. Disliking a video does not translate to disliking a person. Also, you have not demonstrated that the specific opinions expressed by MediaCorp artists on his parents are mainstream opinions. You have only proven that the video is unpopular. That's all. I will follow up to address your other comments when I have time. Deffydaft ( talk) 16:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I know this is big news night now, right here, but I feel that we might need to trim some fat off the article, especially the trivial details. I.e. Do we really need to know the name of his grandmother (which I removed) or even the exact prizes he won from the competition? Zhanzhao ( talk) 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Also another thing to point out is that many parts of the article which can only be sourced to Amos himself or involved parties are being written as if they were fact i.e. the part about him being asked to leave church was a statement from Amos himself but not made clear in the article. Such that when the catholic church refutes that statement, the article as it is right now, makes it seem as if the church was covering up when for having really asking him to leave (unproven) and it is just two claims by 2 different parties (Amos and the church). Examples like this (statements by parties written as if they were fact) should be carefully treated to ensure the article stays neutral. Zhanzhao ( talk) 21:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Original text as I read it:
"A third charge, later stood down, was under the Protection of Harassment Act, which accuses him of "making an online video containing remarks about Mr Lee that offended people who viewed it."
"Of" is not correct. It should be "From". See this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Harassment_Act_2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.200.239.210 ( talk) 04:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A case should not be extensively covered on the main biography of Amos Yee. Otherwise, it would be disproportionate coverage. I hereby propose splitting the "2015 controversy" section into a separate article, maybe Public Prosecutor v Amos Yee or some other appropriate name. Feel free to discuss. HYH.124 ( talk) 12:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Zhanzhao: Yes, but he is already a notable person for his biography to be included on Wikipedia. Also, you cannot doubt that he isn't notable before this incident. HYH.124 ( talk) 01:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Just saw these [15], [16], [17] and [18] while researching for an unrelated wiki article. Wondering if this is notable enough to be included. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Amos Yee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like help improvce this page
2404:E800:E60B:58E:303E:FD0E:C38D:31D3 ( talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This heading, for the benefit of those coming in to help with Third Opinion
Just like to point out Yee himself had admitted that the allegations were false, made in an attempt to troll the media. This admission was covered in multiple sources including Yahoo, TheOnlineCitizen, Vulcanpost among others, and even in his own blog where he admitted it. All these sources considered, cover primary, secondary, and even tertiary sourcing categories. So now that verifiability should no longer be an issue, I would instead point out that the old heading is a BLP issue as the heading is misleadingly unfair to the bailor, by not pointing out it was a false allegation while leaving his name there. (PS: Correction on my edit summary on the main article. The term to search for is "Amos Yee Trolled Vincent Law", not "Amos Yee Trolled Francis Law". Here's a few examples where the headings also clearly pointing out false/disproven allegations.
Where there is no question about the truthfulness (or in the case, lack thereof) of the original allegation, stating that it is not true should be perfectly acceptable and fair to the wrongly accused. Zhanzhao ( talk) 14:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on molestation allegations relevance and section title): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Amos Yee and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Zhanzhao considers that the article's section on molestation allegations should be clear in pointing out that these were false, per WP:BLP. Lemongirl considers that the status quo title should prevail, but also questions the section's relevance (and proposed its removal from the article). It seems to me that this information is relevant as it pertains to the case that is the central focus of Amos Yee's article. We do need to consider WP:BLP since both of the individuals in question are alive, and clearly their reputation is on the line here. In this sense, I agree with Zhanzhao. However, I value Lemongirl's statement on WP:RECENT, and do recommend that this always be kept in mind with "celebrities" that seem to rely on scandals for notability. Moreover, I also agree with Lemongirl's assertion that "The level of detail btw, is a general problem with this article". This section, in particular, is excessively descriptive, so I would recommend it to be made more concise per points 2 and 4 on WP:NOTNEWS (i.e., material should not read like a news report). As for the section title, it seems awfully unnecessary to have any mention of the bailor in it at all; I recommend that the section be titled "Molestation allegations" (the term "allegation" covering the point that this is a claim and not necessarily true). Thank you for requesting a third opinion. Have a great week!-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 23:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, the term activist was inserted by an anon IP, amos? Some news may attribute him wrongly as activist but almost all news I read mentions himas just a blogger, big difference. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.99.159 ( talk) 14:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree that a misleading report by one Afp reporter (out of hundreds of others) should not be taken as fact. Need to remove that description. 219.74.87.159 ( talk) 12:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Glaringly, to date, the article just barely mentions the videos and posts which Yee disparages Muslims, which was part of what he was charged and found guilty off? Considering that sentence, at 6 weeks, was even heavier than the first? Zhanzhao ( talk) 00:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Zhanzhao: I have reverted it back to the original status quo of chronological coverage. BLP is very clear on the fact that we don't give undue focus whether by creating a new section or the depth of coverage. This is will require consensus to change. I can post at the BLPN and ask for opinions if you want. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Zhanzhao:, the part on Yee being uninvited from Mythcon 2017 should be put on hold per WP:RECENTISM. Also, if this is notable, you can wait for a secondary news source before adding it in. To me, this whole section seems trivia, and you had complained before that the article is getting bloated. In any case, I am not going to revert your edits, assuming good faith on your part. Jane Dawson ( talk) 05:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Jane Dawson ( talk) 05:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This has been here for years and was major news for several weeks in local and international news media until the slapper was sentenced to a jail term. It can be summarised but should not be removed as trivia. 203.117.121.236 ( talk) 11:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The article on this guy is ridiculously bias to present this guy positively. The first two paragraphs are redundant to the section "Video criticizing Lee Kuan Yew " Where is the information on this guys support of pedophilia and child pornography? and him being kicked out of his home for opinions on pedophilia. 1 2 3 There is even around 10 videos on this on his youtube page and not a mention.-- Cs california ( talk) 23:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzVaeodnam0 This is the citation of him, in his own words, defending incest and pedophilia. I tried adding it, but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4000:AA60:39C4:A203:C5E4:F0BE ( talk) 17:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering he has been sanctioned by Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, I'd think it warrants a separate heading by itself. Its no longer an isolated one-off incidental event. Also considering social media (especially Youtube) was how he got famous in the first place. Zhanzhao ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Stochas -- in this diff, and restored by you in this diff, you added an entire subsection on an incident where Yee was slapped.
Please note the tag on the top of the page about excessive detail; this tag is apt, as the amount of detail about this person is excessive and the page needs trimming, not expansion with yet more trivia and diary-like entries. Please do also see WP:NOT generally, and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS. Just because there are sources for something doesn't mean we include it. Jytdog ( talk) 13:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Universe ( talk) 03:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
What is mothership.sg? It looks like a blog. It said the author of one of the articles "knows how to pronounce 'tchotchke'" so I would doubt the journalistic credentials of someone like that in a place like that. Also, what is the "Malay Mail Online"? Is that a ripoff of the Daily Mail? If they are under the same umbrella, or perhaps even if it aspires to be the muckracker like the original, we need to kill it with fire. Elizium23 ( talk) 12:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a current RFC on certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that editors watching/editing/passing through this article may be interested in weighing in: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. This article may be affected due to the inclusion of Category:Singaporean actors and/or one of its subcategories in the article. RobertskySemi ( talk) 23:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Nobody has given a name of a particular federal courthouse, federal judge, federal prosecutor, etc. involved in the case and the case doesnt seem to be in PACER so I'm not sure these are really federal charges.
However, he does show up on the Chicago inmate locator so we know he is indeed in jail. 2600:1003:B1A8:2BFE:0:0:F4E7:1E01 ( talk) 23:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)