Talk:Zeng Guoyuan

Linking to NewspaperSG

I think you should avoid providing hyperlinks to the NewspaperSG website, and remove the ones in this article. According to clause 2.1 of the website's terms and conditions:

Copyright

The copyright in this website is owned by NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY or its licensors. No part or parts hereof may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, modified, republished, displayed, broadcast, hyperlinked, framed or transmitted in any manner or by any means or stored in an information retrieval system without the prior written permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY. ... You also may not, without the permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY, insert a hyperlink to this website on any other website or "mirror" any Material contained on this website on any other server. [Emphasis added.]

— SMUconlaw (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For educational sake, let the usage of hyperlinks here be mercied. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother removing them, but "education's sake" is not really an argument that will fly if NLB decides a breach of their terms and conditions has taken place. I would suggest you remove the links, and avoid adding links in other articles. Just because there are no hyperlinks doesn't mean that interested readers will be unable to locate the newspaper articles themselves. If we expect other websites to respect Wikipedia's terms and conditions, we should respect the terms and conditions of other websites in turn. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought of the hyperlinks as convenience links, but since NLB has decreed as such, I'd better be getting round to remove them, lest I be executed or something... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Names of children

Hi. I think the inclusion of the names of the children of the article's subject violates WP:BLPNAME, which states:

Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. [Emphasis added.]

The fact that the children's names have appeared in the press before is not the only consideration. They are not involved at all in any the incidents referred to in the article; their only connection is that they are the children of the subject. I think this falls squarely within BLPNAME. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The way I read it, I think in this case it is alright to include his children's names. His two children are directly involved — they are his biological offspring. I've taken clue from a number of random biography articles: the GA Bruce Willis mentions the names of all of Willis' procreation products, as does Brad Pitt. You see the mentioning of Michael Jackson's children in his article, even though in real life he wanted his children to have privacy. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what BLPNAME exists for – people are not to be regarded as involved with the subject of a biographical article simply because they are related to the subject. I don't think Zeng is anywhere in the same league as Willis and Jackson, and their children who may well be notable in their own right. In addition, much of this article casts Zeng in a less than positive light, which points to a greater need for solicitude for his family members' privacy since they are not directly involved in either his criminal convictions nor his attempts to stand for public office. Anyway, if you disagree, shall we request for more input from other editors so consensus can be reached? I'm happy to file a request for comment. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it's a small matter. Let it stay a molehill. I now also think the inclusion of the names don't matter much. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad we could reach agreement on this issue. Happy editing. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, after all your prism of knowledge is greater. I think this has content worthy of GA-class; if I nom it and the GA reviewer deems it worthy to include the childrens' names, then I'll do the changes. For now, I'll just leave it like it is then. It is really rare to find somebody who actually reads the Terms and Conditions of something! :) I'll send you something shortly. Be happy. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)