Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Bus Uncle/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 17:54, 14 July 2007.

[edit] The Bus Uncle

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at WikiProject Hong Kong, KP Botany, Night Gyr, DGG, Eagle101, Yannismarou, Tony1, Raphaelmak, HongQiGong, Jacklau96, Raul654, Pomte, Kusma, SandyGeorgia, Pjacobi, Kylohk, Tony Sidaway, and WikiProject Biography.

FAC

This article is taking a lot of flack, including attempts to remove it from the list of Featured Articles and some rather nasty things said about it. Thus, I'm bringing it here. Discuss the article. Improve the article. Then let's all decide whether it should be Featured. -- Jonel | Speak 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Couple things I see here. The names don't help this at all, and are unneeded. They dont add to my comprehension of the article, unless I should know these people already, it's just fluff. The article goes to great length to explain what happened, but not really why it's important. Notable, yes, it shows exactly why it's notable. But I'd like the article to explain why this topic is important. There's a small bit of that towards the end, but not nearly enough. -M^ask? 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For starters, the opening paragraph includes this line, "Contrary to reports in Western media,[1] the word "uncle" was never mentioned." The article then elaborates on the word "Uncle:"

Bus Uncle

In Chinese culture, it is common for a person to refer an older person as "阿叔", roughly translated as "Uncle". The English title of the video is hence called "The Bus Uncle".

.... without telling us if the young man addresses the older man with this form of address in the video. Does he?

This whole section, title "Bus Uncle," is in fact a bunch of disconnected comments, and needs connecting phrases that take the reader from one to the next OR that shows the reader how all three are related to each other or to the section:

The name is also a reference to football commentator Lam Sheung Yee (林尚義), who is nicknamed "Uncle" and whose voice resembles that of Chan. Lam's name appears as part of the title of the original video.[2]

So? Did the name "Bus Uncle" come from Lam? And is he nicknamed Unlce in the term or respect or as a familiar relationship form, now that we've introduced these concepts about what uncle is and isn't.

The "Bus Uncle" was revealed to be a restaurant worker in his early fifties, Roger Chan Yuet Tung (Chinese: 陳乙東),[8] a Yuen Long resident. As of June 2006, when the "Bus Uncle" incident had become well-known and after his identity was revealed, Chan was criticised for reportedly demanding remuneration for interviews.[9]

We've moved from etymology of the title, to casting without so much as a blink--this doesn't belong in this section, and the section should probably be split, one about how the title came about, another about who the people in the video tape are.

Just for starters. And I agree with User:AKMask. KP Botany 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a note - I know many editors will read this as a biographical article, and while the rules of WP:BLP definitely applies, the article is more of a topic of an Internet meme than anything else. That's what the topic is notable for - a huge internet phenomenon that was covered in mainstream media. And that's a good reason why the article is not named for the main person involved, it's named as what the incident is known as on the internet. So please try to frame it in the context of an article about an internet meme and not as a biographical article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I think that's what the poster above is trying to get across, the article basically reads like a story of these two men, but that's not really what it's about--it's not even about the incident, as much as it is about the place of the incident in popular culture. I didn't catch this, until you stated it explicitly, but this, imo, what's most wrong about the article, it's failure to make clear its relevance. KP Botany 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Another point is that, there used to be a transcript of the entire exchange in English in the article. But it was transwikied to Wikisource. If you click the link there, you can find that the word "Uncle" was never mentioned. At the same time, Reference 3 of the article links to the video with English subtitles. Again, you will find that the word "uncle" was never mentioned.--Kylohk 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  A question I have on this point: In the English translation on Wikisource, Elvis calls Roger "boss" a number of times. What is the Chinese that "boss" is translated from? Specifically, is it "阿叔"? -- Jonel | Speak 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • We should footnote what need to be verified to the Wikisource entry then. Is there a standard way to make footnotes to a Wikisource entry? Does anybody know? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The "boss" is translated from 老闆. Which literally means boss.--Kylohk 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Figured it was probably something like that, but wanted to double-check to make sure it wasn't an alternate translation. -- Jonel | Speak 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Is 阿叔 used at all in the conversation, though? The article is unclear about this. KP Botany 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Okay, I see you're working on this section. KP Botany 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Also, I think this is simplified Chinese, " 巴士阿叔", not traditional. KP Botany 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's both. The four characters are the same in both Traditional and Simplified. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. KP Botany 21:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Having looked at the other language versions of the article, particularly the Cantonese Wikipedia version, I found a timeline section outlining how the word spread out. That section highlighted the exact date and the radio and television programmes it spread out through, hence it is possible to add a "The Word Spreads Out" section using those radio programmes and newspapers and magazine articles as sources, and that can address AKMask's concern.--Kylohk 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't. Thats more what happened, not why it's important. The bit in there about the high-stress enviroment in HK making this a more common occurrence is a start, but delve more into it. Other incidents like this, government or scientific studies on stress in hong kong, more commentary from shrink-types. Thats what Im looking for.-M^ask? 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Having reread the "Along for the ride" article, I actually found that there are more "experts" than I thought on the subject. I will add them tomorrow.--Kylohk 22:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• For anybody who hasn't watched the video yet, here it is[1] with both Chinese and English subtitles. Hahhah, I get a kick out of it everytime I watch this thing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks. Bus Uncle was a bit nastier than I thought from just reading this article. Young man will hold his tongue before getting in a last comment, next time. It is rather funny, although certainly a commentary on our times. KP Botany 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reading that there was "copious use of profanity" is quite different from actually hearing that copious use of profanity itself.  :) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: What is wrong with note 12? In general, when I read this article in WP:Biography review, and then in FA my opinion was that it was FA quality. Now, I'll read it again, and I'll come back with further comments, in order to say if IMO this FAR is justified or not.--Yannismarou 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The recent general application of Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons to maybe twenty articles is under Wikipedia:Arbitration at the inadequately titled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Specifically, I put these events at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons meets Wikipedia:Featured articles.2C with a loud crash but suspect much of the rest of the case is also relevant. Any decision made in that case is likely to be highly relevant, maybe even decisive, here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a much more complicated matter than I previously thought. I suppose that decisions made in the ArbCom case affect only to the biographical portions of the article. However since the statements are already sufficiently attributed, there is not much they can argue on this article.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, it might be useful to split the biographies part into new articles, so that this article concentrates on the incident. However since this is involved in an ArbCom case, my suggestion is to wait until the final desicion is made before making further major edits on the biographies part.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Some extra information about "Life in Hong Kong" has been added. They discuss the video clip culture, apathy of Hong Kong people and a survey on youngsters about the incident. In fact, that particular section is getting rather large. It may be a good idea to further divide it into subsections to classify the concerns of those experts. As for the "character introduction" section, I don't think it violates WP:BLP right now, due to all statements being properly sourced. P.S. I'm really surprised by the mentioning of the article in BDJ's Arbcom Case too.--Kylohk 19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That large section has now been split into two parts.--Kylohk 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider that part of my objection addressed after reading these additions, which are very nicely done. I would still advise that the names are inappropriate and do nothing to add to my or others comprehension of the article. -M^ask? 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd seem a bit demeaning to call him the "Bus Uncle" throughout the article, like he deserves to be known only through a nickname coined by others. It'd ruin the flow to say that his identity was revealed and then not give it, which begs the question, "so, who is he?" Also, "young man" would sound awkward throughout the entire article and he's not exactly young. –Pomte 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the social impacts section, I replaced most mention of Bus Uncle and young man in person with Chan and Ho repesctively. As for the names of the experts, they have been retained for flow. (If you can remove them without disrupting the flow, feel free to do so.)--Kylohk 08:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It looks like this article was mentioned in the ArbCom case because an editor wanted some feedback on Tony Sidaway's behaviour[2], which to me was extremely out of line. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Dangling modifier there--not sure which you mean was out of line, the mentioning in the case or the behavior by Tony. But heck, I'll probably disagree with you either way, so, oh well ;). Anyway, this isn't really the place for discussing behavior; I'll post comments to your talk page. -- Jonel | Speak 01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I noticed I was mentioned at the ArbCom page. I never supported the promotion of this article, or edited it other than to add back references which were inadvertently deleted twice in the reverts and to correct the talk page article history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• We need to define some parameters here. First, it's not clear this article should even be at FAR, since 3 months is the usual lag time between promotion and review. Exceptional cases are considered. Since there is an intense, ongoing discussion about whether the article is a BLP violation, it needs to be established whether the article needs review on the basis of a BLP exception. For now, can editors focus on defining the issues that necessitate an exception to the normal 3-month lag period between promotion and FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's talk about the BLP with respect to this article. The rationale behind BLP is the impact of Wikipedia on the lives of the subject, due to it being a top 10 website. Therefore, any contentious or "out-of-this-world" statements without proper reliable sources should be removed. However, this article has been clearly sourced, from top to bottom. Therefore, no matter how farfetched the content sounds, it is not a violation of BLP. Same goes for the names, since they have been repeatedly mentioned by the press. (In fact, Roger Chan did attempt to run for Chief Executive of Hong Kong in 2007, and his name, along with his Bus Uncle nickname were quoted by Ming Pao, one of the most creditable newspapers of Hong Kong.--Kylohk 08:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm of the opinion that this article is about an internet meme, and not a biographical article. In light of that, I do wonder if some of the information about the people involved are trivial. Information like Roger Chan's attempt to run for Chief Executive may be notable for a biographical article about him, but I don't think it's necessarily a notable piece of information for an article about the Bus Uncle internet meme. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Later in the article, there's talk about whether his behaviour in the video is typical of someone in Hong Kong. Three attempts for that position seems rather atypical, and this information may be able to fit into that section instead of the "biographical" section. Augustine Tan of Asia Times Online wrote, "Since the law requires a chief-executive candidate to have resided continuously in Hong Kong for not less than 20 years prior to the election and not to have a criminal record, Bus Uncle clearly told some very big lies in filing his candidacy, or maybe he just has a good imagination."[3] This is relevant to his reaction to the media, and other viewpoints put forth in the article. –Pomte 16:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Presently this article is blessedly free of the biographies of living persons problems that blighted it before. The level of extraneous personal detail is much lower.

One exception is the Aftermath section, which goes into considerable detail about the consequences for the Uncle. Details of his personal relationships, and his subsequent personal tragedies, are given. I would prefer to see this rewritten, while retaining references, to say something very roughly like:

"The recorded outburst came at a time when his personal life was in some turmoil. As a consequence of his identification he received a proposition from journalists to visit the young man's office to apologise and offer a joint venture. This was rejected by the young man, who threatened to sue the journalists. He was later forced to give up a job because his new employer's wife and daughter heavily pressed for his dismissal due to adverse publicity."

This would retain the factual content while not going into harrowing detail about suicide attempts and whatnot. It's just a matter of taste and decency. The article should focus on the phenomenon, not the people.

It strikes me here that we're also missing a story about the manipulation of the two men by the journalists. However we can't report this unless someone has studied this issue. The Agnes Lam reference, cited in the "Criticism of Hong Kong media ethics" section, seems to touch on this. I can't find the text f that on the South China Morning Post site, sadly, so I don't know whether there's enough material there. I think there's a potentially good article here, but it needs more material from commentators on press ethics and sociology, if such material exists. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That particular article is found on the South China Morning Post archives, and requires a subscription. Anyway, I know about at least 1 other source regarding the media ethics ba Ta Kung Pao, and can add it if you wish.--Kylohk 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added that editorial commenting on the professionalism of the Hong Kong media. According to that editorial, it seems that the Bus Uncle's extraordinary claims about his life may have been a lie after all. (Such as him having 3 degrees, being imprisoned in Belgium for 4 years etc.)--Kylohk 08:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that the buzz has died down, this article needs a longer lead. Raul654 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested concern was BLP violations. Marskell 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, at least, that's what I gathered at the initial flare-up. Not sure what people have decided on, so moving it down. Marskell 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read it with a fine-toothed comb, but I don't see anything wrong with this article as it now stands. Raul654 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think sufficient action has been done to keep it satisfying WP:BLP. Having read through the "people involved" section, I now can only find information regarding the incident. As for the Aftermath, it's completely related to the Bus Uncle incident, so, no breach of privacy has been made.--Kylohk 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I have temporarily commented out the second paragraph of the aftermath. It mentions how the Bus Uncle was badly beaten up while he was newly hired as a restaurant PR director, and how the wife of the restaurant owner nearly killed herself due to all the publicity. If no one finds any problems with including that paragraph, feel free to uncomment it. Otherwise, there are no BLP violations, having checked again.--Kylohk 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see why this article should not be FA.--Yannismarou 17:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it is really "one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer"? Steve Dufour 10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is, during the FAR period. There were few explicit suggestions on how the article could be removed. In fact, it seems the users lost interest after the Badlydrawnjeff case cooled down. Read the article. Are there any BLP violations anymore? If there are any problems. I hope you'd suggest ways to rectify it, since the FAR was insufficient in detailas to what actions should be taken.--Kylohk 10:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I remember reading this article when the various lurid (and unchecked) details of the Bus Uncle's life were in it. Now those are no longer there, the BLP concerns have, in my opinion, been resolved. The article reads much more like the social commentary it should be. I probably wouldn't support it if it came fresh to WP:FAC, but I don't think it should be removed either. More work should be done on it over time though, to improve it still further. Carcharoth 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing: I can see that this one raises existential issues about what Wikipedia should and should not cover. But as there is no importance requirement in the criteria, and people are happy with the BLP coverage, I think we can keep it. Marskell 17:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.