Talk:Moy Yat
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. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] request to withhold lineage information?
The lineage information was removed upon the request from Moy Yat's family. It would be a courtesy to honor such a request. However, what is wikipedia's position in such matters? These information are public knowledge. Do his family have control over that? What if Richard Nixon's family request the whole Watergate scandal be removed from wikipedia, is there an obligation to honor every request in this nature? I don't care one way or another. I just worry that this action set a bad precedence for wikipedia. Kowloonese 01:13, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think there is an obligation to honour requests to remove information. If the information is in any way libellous then wikipedia does remove it as happened with the Brian Potter controversy. I can't see what the legal issues are here though. If the information can be sourced and verified then there's no reason for us to adhere to the request unless there is some specific issue that the lawyers will have to mull over. MLA 16:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The only guideline I can find on this is: [1]. The cases that I am aware of where wikipedia has agreed to a request to remove information was either due to libelllous statements or where it would cause undue suffering. I don't think either applies here. MLA 16:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is remote possibility that such info may cause undue suffering. For example, if master Moy has a lot of enemies and a list of his students may bring harm and attack to these people. Kowloonese 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- But is the information publically available anyways? --Mista-X 21:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- The other issue (and why I feel it should not be removed) is this type of request can be missued as well for political purposes. Anotherwords, libel can work both ways - such as if someone leaves the family in question and the "family" wants to strike them from the record as if they never existed. Its harder to do on a publicly available listing, hence you ask for it to be removed so people have no idea who was with it when in the first place. --Marty Goldberg 02:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- But is the information publically available anyways? --Mista-X 21:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is remote possibility that such info may cause undue suffering. For example, if master Moy has a lot of enemies and a list of his students may bring harm and attack to these people. Kowloonese 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- The only guideline I can find on this is: [1]. The cases that I am aware of where wikipedia has agreed to a request to remove information was either due to libelllous statements or where it would cause undue suffering. I don't think either applies here. MLA 16:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have any ideas for a workable system of resolving lineage disputes, while maintaining a neutral point of view?Toestar 06:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very simply, Wiki policies trump outside requests. If its verifiable and referenced (which would make mean its public info), then there's no reason it shouldn't be here. --Marty Goldberg 15:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
