Talk:Calvin Cheng

RFC: COI edit request re: AMIP lawsuit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose adding some context about motivations to the price fixing paragraph (second-to-last) in the "Business career" section: In the past (see above), there has been some debate about whether this context is sufficiently neutral and notable for inclusion. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC). Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Despite profiting from higher agency commissions, Cheng insisted that AMIP's goal was to raise wages for models. The CCS judged that AMIP engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing to achieve that goal, resulting in customers paying more, and having a considerable adverse impact on the market.

Please note I have a COI: I have been paid by Mr. Cheng to submit this request. @Anachronist and Jane Dawson: Pinging you both as you were previously involved in discussions on this issue. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

• I am fine with that. Jane Dawson (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• This information seems ok to me as well and it is relevantly sourced. It should be included.173.167.211.241 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I'm also in favor of this. The notability of this fact should not be in question as it has been reported in multiple reliable sources. And the fact that the subject of the article wants it mentioned is irrelevant to our editorial guidelines. It's a notable fact, and the context in which it's stated appears sufficiently neutral. I will repeat what I said in the lengthy discussion above: AMIP's purported "goal" of benefiting models happens to be a notable even if Cheng himself has his own motives for wanting to include a statement about it. That "goal" is repeatedly recognized by the CCS and the other sources, and therefore is notable enough for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion Support amended version, but not the current addition The proposed addition is editorialising the issue somewhat, which I am not comfortable with. For example,

1. Despite profiting from higher agency commissions, is unnecessary editorialising.
2. Not supported by source. the CCS judged that AMIP engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing to achieve that goal is misrepresenting the CCS judgement and is not supported by a source (CCS never said that AMIP was trying to achieve that goal and in the pursuit of that goal, engaged in anti-competitive behaviour. CCS did not accept the claim that "AMIP's goal was to reduce prices for models". On the contrary, this is what the CCS report says

   CCS finds that the evidence shows that the intent among the Parties was to collectively raise the rates gradually over time, instead of an immediate drastic increase, so as not to attract too much attention or complaints. For instance, in a letter to the AMIP members (which included the Parties), Calvin Cheng, then AMIP President, cautioned : "I am concerned that we will meet a backlash from the industry if we recommend higher rates too drastically ... Not only this, the Competition Act having come into existence... we do not want to fall prey to any accusation that we are price-fixing. The more agitation we create among our clients, the more likely they may band together to lodge a complaint against us".

• If you really want to add I suggest adding these 3 lines from the actual source which is neutral and state the facts of both parties clearly.

Mr Cheng stated that the intent of the modelling agencies was to raise the rates paid to models. However, the price-fixing agreement increased the prices that customers paid, which also increased the amount of commission due to the modelling agencies. The agencies' actions were found by the Competition Appeal Board to have an appreciable adverse effect on the market.

Based on the previous discussions by User:Jane Dawson, Anachronist and Jytdog I think it would be fair to include, the above quote. Personally, I don't prefer to shorten it, but if it is shortened then for balance we should state the 3 things in order - (1) Cheng states intent was to raise rates paid to models, (2) however price-fixing increased the prices paid by customers, increasing amount of commission to modelling agencies, (3) CCS found this had "an appreciable adverse effect on the market" BukitBintang8888 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts, after going through the entire discussion, I don't think we really need to add this to the article. The article is about Cheng and it focuses on Cheng's role in the price fixing incident. I don't think we need to explain the supposed motivations/explanations ("goal") of AMIP behind the price fixing and how CCS found that it was not true. Neither am I happy with the references (#2 is irrelevant as it is a PR before the incident, #3 is an interview with Cheng and #1,4 are both letters from CCS). Other references don't really include this "goal" for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], It's a bunch of WP:COATRACK and undue for this article. Best not to include it.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we have a general consensus here. I'm going to add a passage that takes into account BukitBintang8888's comments. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree with the inclusion (see my second thoughts above, I apologize for not modifying the bold text). The article specifically deals with Cheng's role in the AMIP price fixing ("Cheng played a central role by instructing AMIP members how to mask the collusion to evade detection and complaints"). Cheng appealed was that this was damaging to his character, however the CCS did not allow the appeal because he was not personally fined. This is well explained in this article [7] (I have the full version pdf). I don't see why we need to include tangential information about the fact that AMIP has "noble goals". The article is not about the motivations/guilt of AMIP, but about Cheng's role in it and his subsequent appeal attempt about that.

Additionally, even if we focus on the facts of the AMIP incident, I noticed that most third-party non-interview references which cover the price fixing incident as a whole (including the subsequent appeals), do not even mention "noble goals"/"raising wages for models". For example, [8] makes no mention of it (even though it elaborates on Cheng's appeal). Similarly, [9] says "All five agencies appealed only against the financial penalty imposed and not the infringement decision." From what I understand, it seems like AMIP itself did not use that reason as a counterpoint. Another source [10] states "The agencies had characterised their actions as price guidelines issued by a trade association known as the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (Amip). CCS found that the agencies had fixed prices on a wide variety of modelling services including editorials, fashion shows, and media loading usage. Customers who suffered from this practice included publishers, photographers, show choreographers, event organisers, and fashion labels." [11] states "The CCS found that through the establishment of the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (“AMIP”), the modelling agencies colluded to decide on rates to be charged for modelling services. Contrary to the arguments raised by some of the modelling agencies, the CCS was of the view that the rates implemented by the AMIP were not a result of price recommendations but price-fixing. The parties were found to have compiled and circulated the agreed modelling rates in secret and AMIP members sought to enforce these rates against each other. Such conduct ultimately constitutes price-fixing behaviour". Similarly in [12] "In the course of investigations, the modelling agencies had characterised their actions as price guidelines issued by a trade association known as the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (AMIP). However, CCS found out that the AMIP was essentially a 'front' for its individual members, namely the agencies, to coordinate on and collectively raise rates for modelling services in Singapore.The agencies had fixed rates on a wide variety of modelling services, including editorials, advertorials, fashion shows and media loading usage. Customers who were impacted included publishers, photographers, show choreographers, show organisers and fashion labels...Five of the 11 modelling agencies appealed to the CAB seeking a substantial reduction in financial penalties, but did not dispute that they had infringed the Competition Act". Given that most reports do not even mention "noble goals"/"raising wages for models" as a reason, I don't see why we need to mention it in this article.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of additional information but oppose the proposed wording. The CCS did not "recognize" the defendant's justification for his illegal acts. The CCS accepted the excuse proffered in the same, exact, routine manner it accepts perforce every defendant's statement and nothing more. To argue differently is to engage in misrepresentaion. The excuse offered by the defendant for his criminal activity should, of course, be present in the article's text but worded neutrally, i.e.

Cheng profited from the higher agency commissions, claiming in defense that the goal was to "raise wages for models." The CCS ruled that AMIP engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing, resulting in customers paying more, and having a considerable and adverse impact on the market.

-The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@The Gnome: We had consensus for this change (I like yours) for some time now. Would you take a shot at adding your proposed version in a way that incorporates the sources cited in the first proposed revision? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added it to article as per the RFC. Kept the wording by Gnome.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of information regarding Cheng's role and his personal appeal

Given the amount of COI editing on this article for more than 10 years, I am not sure how to look at this attempt to remove this content [13], [14] The Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) noted in its decision that as president of the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals Singapore (AMIP), Cheng played a central role by instructing AMIP members how to mask the collusion to evade detection and complaints. There is a secondary source for this and this information is particularly relevant as Cheng tried to file an appeal against the CCS decision specifically as he considering it to be damaging to his character.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

While it was removed supposedly on WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the information is verifiable and reliable as well as relevant and in no case a BLP violation. So unless someone can prove the contrary, I don't see why this should be removed.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please quote something from Concurrences, that supports this claim. I do not have access to it. We cannot rely on "point 213h, page 95" which is a primary source court document. Concurrences is the only secondary source presented that is acceptable to Wikipedia per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Because this issue has become contentious, anything not found in secondary sources should be removed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an entire section in Concurrences which discusses this issue and calls him Calvin Cheng, a director and shareholder of Looque, one of the Appellants, was held by the CCS as being the leader and instigator of the cartel. As for RedwireTimes, there is no evidence it is unreliable. Sure, it is an alternate media in Singapore (as mainstream media is under government influence). That doesn't make it unreliable. It is also quoted by other media such as at [15], [16], [17], [18]. More importantly, in this particular case the information in redwire times can be verified from the primary source as well, so it is reliable here.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WP:RSN about Redwire. I also wish you would stop relying on primary sources like CCS. This whole situation would be so much easier. If you relied solely on secondary sources, there would be zero issues. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We have had this discussion (it's there is the archives where a COI editor constantly tried to whitewash this article).--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue with Singapore is that there is a dearth of secondary sources given its small area and press freedom. In a BLP, the primary source can be used to augment content and in this case it is useful.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#"This commentary was submitted by A.S.E.". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Update

Coffeeandcrumbs, I am not sure who has asked you to do the changes. I trust you will read the WP:COI guideline. Regardless, there is no consensus that the information you are trying to remove is factually incorrect. As far as I know, the information about Cheng's personal role in the price fixing matter is well documented and truthful. What the secondary source says can be verified from the primary source easily. The subject himself has never contested it. The primary sources are there for a reason - to support the secondary sources. We don't scrub out primary sources from the article simply because the subject may not like it. Not for Trump, not for anybody.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Your argument that only government linked sources are reliable and others are unreliable doesn't hold. If that's the case, Wikipedia would be fundamentally biased.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

BukitBintang8888, I do not care enough to argue with you. I have tried to adhere to BLPSOURCES. You continue to cite court records, other primary sources, or unreliable sources, IMO, in violation of our policies. This is a living person and we should be meticulous in our writing and citations. You continue to insist this is "well documented and truthful". This is Wikipedia. We are not here to right great wrongs. You are not improving Wikipedia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The primary sources are augmenting the secondary source which is perfectly fine. The information is reliable and well sourced. If you are claiming the information as false or untrue, I would like you to present some evidence here. No is talking about right great wrongs. This is an encyclopaedia, we present factual information. We do take care in case of BLPs as we don't want to defame anyone and but no defamation is happening here.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

BukitBintang8888, see WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. This is unacceptable for a BLP. I went to WP:RSN as you requested and you did not participate in the discussion. "[T]he threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Whether or not it is true is inmaterial. What is important is does it have due weight. It most certainly does not in the current version. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Your edits don't correspond to your proposed removal of the phrase "collusion to evade detection and complaints" which is how the conversation ended at RSN. Reliable sources were given, such as Law360 and Straits Times. See also the section at the top of this page, #RFC: COI edit request re: AMIP lawsuit, which has more sources. It would be nice if someone other than the participants in that discussion (such as yourself) put in the sentence being discussed and finalized by BukitBintang8888, with the sources given in that discussion.~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I did remove "collusion to evade detection and complaints" but I was reverted. I am unwilling to apply the result of the RfC because it was flawed from the start. I disagree with its conclusions as it countermands the bigger consensus at WP:BLP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That said, it looks like you were trying to edit surgically, and add sources. It seems that your edits retained the content that needed to be retained. It looks OK to me... but I admit I may be missing something because it's difficult to follow the diffs to figure out exactly what got added and removed (the diffs get confusing if line breaks are added and removed) so I have to ask @BukitBintang8888: would you please explain specifially which edits on 11 February were so problematic that you had to do a wholesale revert? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that reliable sources support this fact: "CCS in its judgement found that Cheng played a central role by instructing AMIP members how to mask the collusion to evade detection and complaints." The CCS judged it like this and we report it. Cheng appealed against it and we reported that as well. We are not saying it in Wikipedia voice. We are reporting the CCS judgement. There is 0 BLP violation here--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

BukitBintang8888, the statement "There is 0 BLP violation here" is not correct. This article currently violates WP:BLPPRIMARY which says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The CCS decision is a primary source public document and is not independent according to our policies and guidelines. CCS is involved. You of course will respond that "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." However, what you are doing here is not what this exception was intended for. It was intended for non-WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims as is indicated by the footnote here. Non-exceptional claims are like dates and other claims that are not likely to be challenged. This claim has been challenged many times. "Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Replied below.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw Coffeeandcrumbs, if this is a request from someone, I would appreciate some transparency.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest. Many editors with proper user access can verify why I became interested in this article. That is as transparent as I can be. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand what you are trying to say and I appreciate that.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, the RfC was regarding putting in Cheng's "reason" for price fixing: his claim that he did it for raising models' wages. Although I think it is a PR spin, I have still added it to the article (the exact wording which you agreed to).--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that C&C has a COI. Both he and I have numerous interests here on Wikipedia; this article is a tiny piece of our activity here. The editor who has a COI, who started the RFC at the top of this page, openly declared it.

The claim we're discussing isn't exceptional. And it hasn't been challenged numerous times. Nobody has ever disputed that CCS found that Cheng instructed AMIP members how to evade detection and complaints, not even Cheng disputed this (instead he justified it by saying his goal was to support the models). Yes, we shouldn't cite CCS solely for that claim in a BLP. But we have reliable sources supporting it. How "exceptional" are the sources supposed to be, for a claim that nobody disputes? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is my point as well. Cheng has talked about his "intentions" (which are already added to the article); he has never disputed his involvement. Not sure why is it exceptional to claim that the CCS found Cheng played a part. I could understand the issue if this was said in Wikipedia voice, but that is not happening here.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-opening this discussion as it has not been resolved after 4 years, and the segment discussed is still in article. 218.212.161.224 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Profited"

I recently had an opportunity to converse with Mr Cheng about this article. He maintained that the statement "Cheng profited from..." is factually wrong, he never profited personally. I told him I'd look into it.

Examining the sources, I found three discrepancies, unrelated to each other:

• Unsourced claim: The citations in the article say nothing about Cheng claiming his goal was to "raise wages for models". The Straits Times source that verified this claim was in a version proposed in the closed discussion above, but somehow got omitted after the discussion closed.
• Failed verification: I was unable to find any verification in any cited source for the statement "Cheng profited...." The CCS report says that "entities" profited, but the context is about modeling agencies, not individuals. The article states that Cheng's appeal was denied because he was never personally fined, and we cite a source verifying this, but the source doesn't say he personally profited (and it's likely he would have been fined if he had profited). As it stands, the statement violates WP:BLP.
• Possibly unreliable source: Redwire Times seems to be defunct, existing now only as a Facebook presence[19] that solicits contributions from anyone, which seemed to be the case with the present citation too. While the cited Redwire piece (now on archive.org) includes useful links to official documents, the article is clearly an editorial written in first-person, and submitted to Redwire by a person identified only by the initials "A.S.E." Because that source is backed up by official records cited in the same two sentences, it is redundant and could be removed.

Given those points, some surgical changes to the article are in order, adding the missing source, removing the phrase "profited from the higher agency commissions", and removing an editorial as a source. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It has been four months since I made the observations above. Absent any objection, I have made these surgical changes to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding News about Calvin Cheng's "Name and Shame" postings drawing netizen reaction

Hi @Anachronist Can I with you on your comment during the revert: "The WP:BURDEN to include this gossip has not been met. Cheng posts a lot, and his posts get written about.".

Considering this was covered by no less than 5 different news sources to date, across the political spectrum (2 clearly state media and 1 considered anti-establishment), and the news is covering the reactions of the general public to his post, rather than just mentioning what he did. Surely this crosses the definition of "gossip"?

Just want clarification as it's been a while since I actively edited (as you can tell from my edit history and trying to remember how to format sources), threshold seems a bit different from what I recall from last time. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Also on another note, @Anachronist, can you share the source of the prize that Calvin Cheng created still exists in 2020? I did a search on both Google and the college website, which only turns up the one-time 2017 donation. His name does show up in donation lists for the years after, but that's just a "generic" list of donors with no mention that it was to maintain a specific prize under his name. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Cheng posts a lot on social media. The reactions on social media get covered by news sources. Over and over. There is no reason to single out one social media incident over others. He's a controversial figure, so a lot of what he says becomes news because he pushes people's buttons. WP:INDISCRIMINATE says that just because something is true and verifiable doesn't autmoatically merit inclusion in an article. I would say this applies to most social media activity. It's coverage of gossip.

The fact that he established a prize is worthy of mentioning; the fact that he did this doesn't expire just because time passes. Prizes do tend to be established once, and then are awarded annually thereafter. I didn't save the sources I found, but see the section I started below. I am uncomfortable with this fact being in the Education section of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah I found mentions of the prize now that you mentioned linkedin. Thanks! Oddly the college doesn't list the prize name on their site, plus I see 2 linkedin awardees refer to it alternately as the Calvin Cheng Prize" and "Calvin Cheng Award" which adds to the confusion. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like Cheng himself is not allowing the topic to die off. Also even Ho Ching has words for Cheng's "shame and name" campaign. Anyways at this rate, there seems to be enough material for a section on digital assets to consolidate his business forays and how he is pushing it. In the meantime, just putting these here as potential sources if this is revisited.

New Sources

'This is mad': Ex-NMP Calvin Cheng, who's for cashless society, slams MP Don Wee over new Choa Chu Kang ATM [20]

While sharing Sun's Facebook post on Thursday (Feb 17), Ho Ching also referenced Calvin Cheng's comments and said: "Indeed there is no need to shame others for using cash. What matters is that the heart is in the right place."

[[21]]

Original Writeup Zhanzhao (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Coverage about philanthropy

One item that seems out of place in the education section is the bit about establishing a scholarship prize at Hertford. I was able to find some evidence (a LinkedIn profile of a Hertford graduate and another university document) suggesting that this prize still gets awarded. However, it should probably be in a section about philanthropy.

There are a couple other sources providing further evidence of philanthropy:

• https://www.comchest.gov.sg/docs/default-source/event/ncss_community-chest-awards-2020_booklet.pdf - this government publication gives a trivial mention to Cheng receiving an award for fundraising and giving efforts. I am not sure how notable the award is, although being established by the government, it probably is notable in Singapore. It is recognition of philanthropy, however.
• https://fintechnews.sg/11846/fintech/launch-singapore-valley-awards/ - says that Cheng and others provided over S$3 million of seed money to fund the "Singapore Valley Awards".

I wouldn't say these are strong sources, but they do verify an attribute of Cheng's career. One example wouldn't merit a section, but multiple examples might. I don't know if there are more. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes that award/prize definitely makes more sense under a "Philanthropy" section.

Troubles with Retech

Retech, a company that Cheng merged one of his companies into, and for which Cheng is a co-chairman[22], is having some problems. According to the edits recently added by Zhanzhao (which I have removed, for reasoning below), the problems are these:

• The stock was suspended in 2022.
• In February 2023, Retech was taken to courts over its failure to repay debts citing covid complications.
• A winding-up petition (liquidation? bankruptcy?) was filed by its creditor.
• Cheng resigned his directorship in June 2023.

All of these facts are verifiable by sources.

What isn't established is whether Cheng induced, or was involved with, any of these events (save the last one of course). The presentation of the facts and ordering implies an entanglement that isn't established by the sources, treading dangerously into WP:SYNTH territory and consequently a WP:BLP violation, and we shouldn't go there.

Certainly we can say he resigned his directorship, because that's something Cheng actually did. The sources documenting the other events don't mention Cheng at all, so including them here looks like an indirect way to synthesize a conclusion that the sources don't actually say. That is why I removed ZhanZhao's addition. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I will agree to just list the resignation while Retech's troubles are independent (as it is not verifiable it is due to Cheng's involvement or otherwise). Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng wasn't merely a director, he was a Chairman of the directors. As clearly indicated in the World Economic Forum page https://www.weforum.org/people/calvin-cheng. This happened under his watch. To say what happend to the company when he was chairman is irrelevant or synthesis, is really wiki-lawyering it. Just like nobody would question any major happening or decision related to Tesla to be in Elon Musks' page. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a poor example as Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla so any major decision or happening has to be decided by him. Unless it can be proved that Cheng is acting as a CEO (or similar capacity) of Retech, being chairman of directors does not mean he is directly involved in decisions made by Retech. The role of directors is to guide and direct, daily operations are still managed by the CEO or similar capacity. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

My blushes, I forgot Musk was removed from his chairman seat a while back. But back to Calvin Cheng, him being Chairman of Directors is highly relevant. The chairman and the board's role is actually to ensures that the firm's duties to shareholders are being fulfilled by acting as a link between the board and upper management. The stock being delisted and hence affecting the shareholders comes under his direct jurisdiction. Not to mention he was the one who led the company to IPO in the first place. PS: His role also involves picking the right CEO to run the company properly, but that can be left out for now. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

So let's say Retech's issues are caused by poor decisions by the CEO which are not guided by the board of directors, then how will this be attributed to Cheng? This is what Anachronist and I are pointing out. The troubles are caused by factors, which may or not have his involvement. The statement you made become problematic as it is not verifiable by sources that whether is it due to him. There is WP:SYNTHESIS in saying since he is the chair of the board so he must be involved which is unverifiable.

By your logic, any Tesla's issues should not be attributable to Elon Musk since he is the CEO and not the Chairman of the board directors.

I can accept mentioning the company stock being suspended which is the current state of the article. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm traveling this week so will have limited access to Wikipedia.

What kind of director is Cheng? If independent director, then he is independent of the company's day to day business. An independent director would likely resign if there were adverse news coming out about the company he's independent of.

Why was the stock suspended? This is a common and non-controversial practice if the company is preparing to relist its stock on another exchange. I removed that sentence because the cited sources say nothing about it, although we can add it back if proper sources can be found. The current sources described instead how Retech would settle some large debts, which hardly seem relevant to this biography.

The point is that we cannot make implications that violate WP:BLP. Context matters. The context of these additions is not clear, and I don't expect to have time to investigate more fully for several days.

If the goings-on with Retech are truly attributable to Cheng, then by all means we need to include it. But this "guilt by association" POV pushing that seems evident by the way these facts are included isn't acceptable and would be a WP:BLP violation. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist He was the chairman of the board of directors. That is as active as one gets in terms of directorship. Per the role of a chairman, he would be the one to authorise any voluntary delisting. There are more articles on the state of the company on Chinese media under its Chinese name 睿泰科技, and seems to be an ongoing story - I just checked and there's been a string of mass resignations so it's not a done case. I'll get back to this in the future. As an irregular editor this article is unnecessarily taking too much of my time. Zhanzhao (talk)• Zhanzhao (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's original research to assume that he had an active role in these dealings or that he authorized anything simply by virtue of his position, if not explicitly stated in sources. As a counter-point, Retech's own corporate governance statement (page 6) requires the chairman to be an independent director. An independent director, according to our Wikipedia article on it, is "a member of a board of directors who does not have a material or pecuniary relationship with company or related persons." Therefore I am skeptical that Cheng had any direct involvement with the goings-on in the news at Retech. It's more likely he performs ceremonial duties like bringing meetings to order and calling for votes.

I do agree with you about this article taking too much time, irregular or not; I'm a regular editor and have a lot of other things on my watchlist to deal with. Nevertheless, this is a biography about a living person, and WP:BLP policy requires that any statement about a living person, especially controversial statements about controversial people, be backed up solidly by reliable sources, and not by conclusions synthesized from sources. Other BLPs on my watchlist receive the same level of scrutiny. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)