Talk:Stanley Ho
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project! | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. | |
|
Hong Kong To-do:
Project Maintenance
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Order of paragraph
OK!!! the new order fo paragraph is good. -- 21charlesliu 18:27, 29 Feb 2004 hong kong
Is it better to re-arrange the order? I think we should distinguish between personal affairs and business, so I prefer to put "personal life" forward, just after "early life" --23Tung 04:22, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
yes we need to re-arrange the order. As seen other page (which also introduce people) in wikipedia, they also put personal life at the end. So I like we would better put 'personal life' at the end instead of put it after 'early life'. I suggest the order of table of content can be like this.
1 Current Positions
1.1 Business
1.2 Community
1.3 Politics
2 Early Life
3 Career path
4 Gambling and Macau
5 Future of his business
6 Community Commitment
7 Honors
8 Triads and Ho
9 Personal Life
10 See also
11 External links
11.1 Business
11.2 Education
11.3 Gambling
11.4 Others
Do you agree on it? If no one have any suggestion, I would do it soon. look forward to your reply. --24yuenching 06:32, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Early life and Studies
Can we just put "Studies" into "Early life" so as to combine them together? --23Tung 10:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think combine this section is okay only if the time of sequence is right. In the current article (you already combined one), the sequence is like that
- his family background
- his father bankrupt and two brothers commit suicide
- education queen's collage (but the information talks about b4 and after his father bankrupt)
- university life
- Current committment in HKU (So straight!!! why it is put in early life?? this is his current committment?)
do any one have any suggestion about that --24yuenching 06:20, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright matter
[edit] Casino pic
Is the picture of Casino Lisoba taken by you, 24yuenching? if yes, you can state below the photo that it is your photo. i think it is safer -- 21charlesliu 23:00, 2004 Feb 26 hong kong
yes I took it. Sorry, but it is unnecessary to 'state' that i is took by me, it is common sense in wikipedia. --24yuenching 10:02, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to claim credit in the caption, but
- i do think it's wise to explicitly do so on this talk page, since many people fail to understand what is and isn't protected by copyright, and many add photos under very debatable claims of fair use, and many (uh, especially Americans) imagine that the only copyright protections are those of the jurisdiction they live in. --Jerzy(t) 17:59, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
[edit] Family pix
are there any sources for the two pictures of Ho's daughter? i think they will infringe copyright if they are posted here. Also, can something find out the english names of Ho's wives and daughters that i put in Chinese? thanks!!!-- 21charlesliu 22:16, 2004 Feb 25 hong kong
Maybe we should remove the two photos in order to prevent the problem of copyright.-- 23lawrencelaw 22:28, 2004 Feb 25 hong kong
I want to ask the source of the photos so as to let us to judge it infringe copyright issue? --24yuenching 16:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I just got those photos from the PHOTO section in the Google Search engine. It says that the photo of Josie Ho comes from www.lovehkfilm.com/people/ho_josie.htm and the one of Pansy Ho comes from www.china.org.cn/chinese/TCC/98391.htm
I'm sorry that I did not aware about the copyright when I got these photos, so I think We'd better remove them from the page now.
[edit] Ho pic
But do you think that the photo of Stanley Ho can still be kept?-- 23lawrencelaw 10:58, 2004 26 Feb hong kong
okay, as these two photos are not important and infringe copyright, let delete it. According to what the lecturer said, stanley ho picture is okay because it is small and we just get one only. --24yuenching 06:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Is the lecturer an attorney specializing in internation intellectual property issues? I'm not going to push for deletion, but i urge against considering the question closed. --Jerzy(t) 17:59, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
[edit] Ho's POV; Gambling
I would like to add something about Stanley Ho's point of view towards different aspects and also how people comment on him (his personality) and his movements. What topic do you think I should add and write under? -- 23pklai 19:48, 2004 Feb 25 hong kong
Thanks for the suggestion. Do any one have the suggestion on the order of the table of contents? And do you think it is neccessary to put the information about the gambling industry in Macau in this page? -- 24yuenching 18:30, 2004 Feb 24 hong kong
I don't think it is necessary to have paragraph to talk about Stanley Ho point of view on different issues. If you want to add people comment on him, simply add title Views of Stanley like what it does in John Kerry --24yuenching 11:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think it will be difficult for us to include Ho's view because we can't make an interview with him. But if anyone can find it and think it is suitable, then try to post it and let's see.
For the gambling industry in Macau, as there's already one being done by another group, so maybe what we've already done is enough. (focus on Casino Lisboa, which is owned by Ho, but not others) -- --23Tung
[edit] The Title "Dr."
What is the source of the title Dr. Ho? Honorary, medical, earned academic? From where and date would be desirable. --Jerzy 20:53, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
The general approach on WP is to describe the source of such degrees or titles(except in cases like the Josiah Bartlett article where we don't know any more of the name than the surname and "Dr.", but not to use the honorific, any more than we use "Mr." Without trying to thoroughly copy edit this article that is growing with (IMO) pleasingly great vigor, i'm going through again striking that title. --Jerzy 16:26, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
My would-be edit with
- Kill many "Dr."s (see Talk:Stanley Ho), w/ the exception of the one in "Dr. Stanley Ho Avenue ', which is appropriate.
as summary ended in an edit conflict, which is fine. If no one else does this work, i'll find a time when the editing has subsided and do them again.
I see that (at least now) Ho's education is mentioned, but no earned degree is. If he left w/o an earned degree, the article should say so; if he ever earned any degree, the highest earned degree should be mentioned. --Jerzy 16:49, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
[edit] The Four Wives of Stanley Ho
I applaud the unusual inclusion of this information, tho it confuses me somewhat. I'm pretty sure that Portuguese, Hong Kong, PRC, and Canadian law prohibit polygamy, and therefore suspect that "wife" is being used here in a sense that differs from US usage and IMO from standard international English.
It may be worth consulting Personal relationship or other authorities in an effort to clarify this. --Jerzy 16:26, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
- in this article the "wife" meaning is the same as international English. You are right that Hong Kong, PRC and Macau also prohibit polygamy. But due to the tradition culture of Chinese -- one man can have more than one wife, in about 40-50 years, polygamy is still allow. That's why he can have 4 wives right now.
24yuenching 18:05, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Tnx, Ching; perhaps i understand you correctly as saying
- "Wife" is used in this article to mean a woman who traditionally would have been accepted as one of several wives, even tho the place(s) she lives do not recognize her as having the legal status of being married.
I am guessing, however, when i try to understand
- in about 40-50 years, polygamy is still allow.
Does this mean the same as
- For the last forty or fifty years, polygamy has continued to be allowed?
I note that what you say seems to contradict the information at Marriage#Types of marriage which says
- In Imperial China, formal marriage was sanctioned only between a man and a woman, although a man could take several concubines and the children from the union were considered legitimate.
My dictionary defines
- concubinage as
- cohabitation of persons not legally married
and i wonder if the article may not use "wives" where "concubines" (or some less formal term) would be the accurate one. --Jerzy(t) 17:38, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)
We also have an article Concubinage. --Jerzy(t) 17:43, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)
To Jerzy: Thanks for your questions about our article. Actually, according to mass media, the 3rd and 4th wife of Dr. Ho are not under law i.e. there's no marriage in between them. However, their positions are no different with legal wife, so we still call them "Mrs Ho". We'll try to clarify in our later. --23Tung 16:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And thank you, Tung, for helping understand; i think i see now: #1 was legal, and when she died, #2 could be. IMO "Mrs. Ho" is not an issue, since WP avoids honorifics like Dr., Mrs., Mr., Ms., at least when a given name is known and is sufficient to avoid ambiguity. So the real question is not names, but descriptions that don't misinform readers about the difference in legal status.
I'm also not looking for an immediate solution; i'm quite satisfied to know that the most active editors are not intending to ignore the need for clarity.
By the way, i like your use of the phrase "our article", because i am assuming you realize that the article is what amounts to being jointly "owned" by the whole body of WP editors, and the "we" involved in is in theory that whole body; one reason i am as relaxed as i am, about however long it takes to work out wordings like this, is that what it should be is not up to me, nor to you (i'm addressing 23Tung) nor to the whole group of numbered users whom i've seen here. If it takes the attention of dozens more editors to achieve consensus on how it should read, that's how may editors will get involved eventually. --Jerzy(t) 08:50, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC) --Jerzy(t) 08:50, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
I killed, regarding one wife under == Personal Life ==, the word "nearly", making it read instead
- A mainlander about half of Ho's age, Leung is said to have nudged aside others.
I removed "nearly" because it is the wrong word, whether she is less or more than half: it would imply "less than" but emphasize that she is almost old enough to qualify as "half", despite the fact that the sentence is about her being young, and should emphasize how young she is, not how old she is or almost is.
I replaced it with "about" because the use of "nearly" left it unclear whether that editor intended to say "more than half, but only by a small margin" or "the difference in the ages is almost half his age". "About" is adequate, but someone who knows whether "less" or "more" is the actual case could improve it:
- If she is a little less than half his age, a good wording would be
- not quite half
- If she is a little more than half his age, a good wording would be
- barely half
--Jerzy(t) 17:31, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
[edit] British numbering system?
In this article, the terms billion and thousand million are used side by side. Such usage is ambigous because according US numbering standard, thousand million is the same as billion. These number should be clarified with definition and specify which system is in use. 07:00, 2004 Feb 26 . . Kowloonese [as noted by Jerzy(t) from page history]
I may have created this mixing of numbering schemes, tho i thot i saw my edits from "billion" to "thousand million" changed back. My reasoning was twofold:
- Carelessly, i assumed the influence of Hong Kong (where i expect the British scheme to prevail) would result in use of the same scheme there, which is hardly obvious [blush].
- In any case, while billion is likely to be written by either UK or US, and misunderstood by the other, and while "thousand million" feels awkward for Americans, still "thousand million" can be figured out by them, and provides the only unambiguous means of expressing these numbers.
I suggest avoiding explicit specifications of which meaning of billion is used in the article (since failing to read the whole article, or to read carefully, probably means the specification is wasted on you). IMO there's no perfect wording, but "thousand million" (with or without explanation) is probably better than any alternative approach. --Jerzy(t) 08:50, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
- I find what i wrote a little ambiguous, and have added bolded wording to clarify it. --Jerzy(t) 18:08, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
[edit] Naming
I have changed the name in the 1st paragraph into this form
Stanley Ho (何鴻燊博士) (born November 25, 1921 in Hong Kong)
because it would be the same format as other articles which descirpting people. Plz, do not change it back. --24yuenching 15:38, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- One format works well for the great majority of WP names, and it helps to stick to that format for them. But because there is no widely recognized single format in English for expressing names from all the world's cultures, some people's names do not fit well into what is probably best described as "the default WP name format". (See, for instance, my recent contribution at List of people by name#Alphabetizing these names and the differences expressed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese)#Vote (Again).) Therefore some innovation can be required, and the most important criteria are clarity and thoroughness rather than standardization. In fact, IMO one thing true about a good first sentence for Stanley Ho would be that its existence would be of interest in a discussion of adding something about bio articles, beyond Names, to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). --Jerzy(t) 19:19, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
[edit] income is 1/3 of Macau GDP?
The article says: " As for his businesses: their incomes constitute about one-third of the gross domestic product of Macau; "; this is unimaginable! Can someone verify if it is income or revenue? thks.
