Talk:Amina Bokhary controversy

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Amina Bokhary controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Hong Kong Low‑importance

This article is within the scope 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.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (22)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (289)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,042)

Image needed (348)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,452) • Stub-Class articles (6,721)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (390) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,341)

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

ethnicity

STSC commented about wishing to see her ethnicity mentioned. I have put it in. However, I would just comment that I fail to see how it is at all relevant. The issues result from her being a scion of the legal/political establishment, not from her ethnic background. Anyone wanting to delve can find what they are after by clicking on Daoud Bokhary or Ronald Arculli. Does anyone else think it should be removed? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's because she does not have a Chinese name. Briefly Mentioning her ethnicity would just satisfy any curiosity from the readers. However, the sentence "Her paternal grandfather...was a stockbroker" does sound very irrelevant and should be removed. Can we just say she's from a Pakistani family settled in Hong Kong? STSC (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see the revelence, seems a bit pointy to me. I agree with Ohconfucius - click on the link if you want genetic ancestry , unless you assert the subjects genetic ancestry is a notable part of this controversy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior incidents -> Previous convictions

Wasn't she found guilty to the criminal charges in the incidents mentioned under "Prior incidents"? So, she had previous convictions. STSC (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is exactly the reason why the article was, in its previous guise, deleted as being an attack page. It might be the case that she's been convicted, it's already there for readers to read. It doesn't need a L3 heading to the effect. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this content was removed completely because it was an attack page and there was an OTRS complaint - If there is a desire or attempts to return the content towards that position I support its speedy removal. Personally I think the content is still a bit bloated but Ohconfucius is an experienced editor and I understand little about the issue - Person with notable parents gets a light sentence is hardy even notable if you ask me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the article was a biography which was unbalanced with too much on her criminal history. This article is about controversy; her previous convictions are the major factors of this controversy. Therefore, there's the need to emphasize it. STSC (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk and dizzy and a taxi driver refusing to take your credit card and Careless driving , slapping a copper - its hardly worthy of criminal note. This article as I see it is a partisan coatracking attack on her father. Although saying that is not a reflection on the current article but more of a reflection on why articles were written about this matter in the primary instance. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking a policeman is a serious offence by any standard unless you're from a lawless society. STSC (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I reverted the title change was that in the 2001 incident, she was arrested and charged, but not convicted in court. Titling the section "Previous convictions" is therefore incorrect and may get you into legal trouble. --Der yck C. 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the text (assuming it is accurate), she was found guilty and fined in the 1st incident; and she pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the 2nd incident. These are previous convictions. STSC (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph did include charges against her for which she didn't get convicted, like the cocaine charge. I'd prefer "Previous/Prior incidents" just to be pedantic that the focus of the section was previous clashes with the police, not their associated criminal convictions; however if you really want to change it I won't revert you. --Der yck C. 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The incident was blown out of all proportion by people playing politics. She was but the pawn in the game, unfortunately. Nevertheless, the incident was notable because of that, and because of who she was, as there was discussion on radio and in the papers for weeks upon weeks – not that everything in the media is worth writing an article on. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the overall consensus is to keep a milder undertone then I can compromise on that. STSC (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much biographical details

I think there's too much biographical details on Amina, and I would want to see it shortened a bit. STSC (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amina Bokhary controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 12:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: User:Deryck Chan

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is very good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MoS followed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References section is fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All statements are backed up by the sources. No plagiarism detected.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think it does.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Although this is a controversial topic, the article does quite well at respecting all points of view.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image has a valid license, and Hong Kong's copyright law allows photographs of buildings.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Caption is good. I wish we had more images, but I can't find any. Even Flickr doesn't seem to have anything relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work.

Resolved issues

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lede should summarize all sections of the article without giving any information that isn't included elsewhere. This three-sentence lede is well-written, but far too short. Also, if the ruling is said to have been criticized as "soft", that needs to be in the body, and properly sourced. Once the lede is fixed, there is no need to have citations in the lede, since all statements will be sourced when they are described in detail in the body.
- The lede is now long enough, and summarizes all sections. There are still problems in the lede, listed below. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reactions" section is by far the longest section. You might want to subdivide it by separating out reactions by police, by politicians, by the public, by the DoJ (including a potential appeal), or some other organization you find fitting. (Don't subdivide it too far, of course.) Also, some of the reactions are not truly noteworthy and should probably be removed. For instance, Andrew Li's quote does not seem to be about the case at all; in my view, that one-sentence paragraph and the quote should be removed. (The lengthy quote by Yuen is appropriate, however.) Ronny Tong is mentioned as expressing concern, but the article doesn't say what he said or why it was important, and I suspect his name should be removed as well. The public polling information gives more detailed statistics than is useful to the reader; the lengthy sentence beginning "Another survey of 1,007 people..." should be summarized, with detailed stats given in the footnote if at all.
- All these issues have been dealt with, thank you. I have a minor nitpick: I believe "Reactions" should be a top-level division (on the same level as "background" and "incident"). I don't insist on this, but I think it's a good idea. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "the Department of Justice (DoJ) stated on 4 August that they were looking for grounds to appeal Bokhary's sentence", but this is sourced to this article, which merely says the DoJ "is still investigating the rationale of Bokhary's sentence and will decide if a review is needed after the investigation." I don't think "looking for grounds to appeal" is a fair assessment.
- This is fixed, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lede calls the sentence "soft", in quotes, but the cited source does not use that word. In fact, the source was published in 2008, before the event even happened.
- After expansion, the lede still call the sentence "soft", but this claim is not in the body of the article and (therefore) is not sourced there. The lede should not give a quote that isn't in the body, and the article should not give an unsourced quote. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to name and link to people in the lede who were not involved in the incident, and who are only involved in the controversy because of the fact that they have a wayward niece. They should be named in the body, but not the lede.
- I made this change. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved issues

None remaining.

Questions

You convert HK$ to US$ in one part, but not others, and I'm not sure why. Would it be better to do so everywhere, or nowhere, or perhaps in the first instance only?
- This is fine now. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would Category:Political protests in Hong Kong be appropriate? Or is that overstating things?

The article states "if leave is granted, then Wong will review Bokhary's sentence". But that was almost exactly a year ago. Is this still a possibility?
- No longer an issue. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Kemal Bokhary singled out in the lede, when she has many other politically-connected relatives? Would it be better to simply say she comes from a wealthy and well-connected family, and leave individual family members to be named in the background section?
- The lede has been expanded dramatically, and this issue has changed to an "unresolved issue", above. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Reactions" be a top-level section? See the second "Resolved issues" entry for more. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks, I have cleaned up the article somewhat. I'm leaving it for a few days and will come back to see if my changes haven't introduced nonsense or messed-up prose. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only a few issues left. It's almost there! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article now passes all criteria. Congratulations! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mary Ma"

I removed the quotation marks on the citation along with the comment after it, which were added by Ohconfucius. A search on The Standard would show that Mary Ma is a regular columnist on The Standard. It follows that it doesn't matter whether "Mary Ma" is the author's real name or a pseudonym, because everyone would refer to this author by this name. Either way, we should respect the author's preference to be addressed by this name when referring to the newspaper column. Der yck C. 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm pretty sure that 'Mary Ma' is only a pseudonym – sexier than 'Editorial', I will defer to your judgement on this. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amina Bokhary controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050526140254/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/stdn/std/Focus/GE26Dh01.html to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Focus/GE26Dh01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amina Bokhary controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Amina Bokhary controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]