Talk:2011 Singaporean general election

Image copyright problem with File:Img157.jpg

The image File:Img157.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Parliament Dissolved

As parliament has been dissolved on 19 April, the PAP candidates contesting in the elections are NOT the incumbent MPs as stated in the section titled "nomination day". The notes for the opposition candidates contesting in the elections are "TBA" for "To be announced", the elections have to be determine before it is announced. As such the notes for the contesting candidates, whether the ruling party or the opposition party be "TBD" for "To be determined" and not "Incumbent" or "TBA" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckysock94 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Of note: Chee Soon Juan is a bankrupt and is barred for standing for election. Why is he still listed as the SDP's leader in the infobox? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also of note: Rizan (talk · contribs) uploaded a bunch of leader headshots claiming own work. The pictures have clearly been taken off the net, so I've removed them all from the infobox and left an only warning. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Answering your qn on Chee Soon Juan, he is still SDP's leader whether or not he is running for elections or not. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

pending changes protection

I think this is the appropriate level of protection to use -- semi-protection might silence too many people at this point. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

swings

The swings are currently presented as though both the NSP and SPA received 13% of the vote last time. These leads to the table reading as a mathematical nonsense, with a very negative "summed" swing. Collectively the SDA received 13% last time. Either we show the collective swings for a combined NSP and SPA, or we indicate that the NSP and SPA did not contest the previous election separately and leave it at that.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There, I fixed it... and gave some more details.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree and would like to see your second suggestion followed. Also on the infobox, it's also a good idea to ditch the parties that got >5% of the vote.

And this article suffers from WP:FU problems too... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any Fair Use issues in the article. Care to elaborate? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The party logos shouldn't be here. That's why the political party templates exist. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The images are not licensed as fair use, but rather as non-copyrightable (legal grey area imo) because these particular logos are nothing more than geometric shapes, unlike, say the WP, which has a hammer in its logo. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

These aren't really geometric shapes. A guy who designed the PAP logo (circle with a lightning bold) probably spent months on designing it. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I drew the logos myself, and made sure there are variations from the original, although the tiny size of the logos may not allow this to be obvious. These diagrams were therefore released under open-source licenses and can be readily used in templates or in this article.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, doesn't it? Your works are derivative works; and if they are "variations" of the logos, then they are not the logos of the parties, which means they can't be used anywhere here as it will be a misrepresentation; and unless the parties release them into the public domain, they'd always be tied up with WP:FU regulations.

Unless of course the copyright law in Singapore says otherwise.

BTW, why is the WP color blue? I thought it was red? Can we use the hues shown on their logos? We'd have plenty of reds though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we contact the opposition parties? I just contacted the NSP from their website and the spokeswoman got to me within one minute of me contacting her. (I didn't ask for permission for the logos though -- just images of candidates, etc. they wanted to release.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos are easier to get in this instance as they can change licenses. Unless SG law tells otherwise, logos are always copyrighted -- and the logos used here are not even the logos the parties used! So we can't invoke fair use for the original party logos, nor can we use the derived logos here since they're not the party logos. Imagine using "simplified and derived" FC Barcelona logos in La Liga seasonal articles!

Anyway, I'll not push for their removal anymore nor notify someone else of this monstrosity of violations, unless people push to use this tactic elsewhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Seat Contested & Leader's seat?

I suppose the "Seat Contested" part is meant to be the number of seats contested? How come it ended up as the leader's seat? 175.139.197.62 (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Leader's seat is/was the seat each leader held as of the dissolution of the 11th Parliament. The seat contested is the GRC or SMC they challenged individually, not how many seats they contested. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well. But I disagree with one thing, that the leader's seat is/was the seat each leader held as of the dissolution of the 11th Parliament. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_election#Usage which clearly states for leaders_seat, it is "The seat the Leader represents", and it does not mention about anything regarding the last election, hence "The seat the Leader represents" should refer to The seat the Leader represents in the current election. Hence to put the leaders' seat prior to the election is wrong. 175.139.196.14 (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is taken to mean the seat the leader represented in Parliament, which at the dissolution of the 11th Parliament was different from their 12th Parliament status. In an article on a British election you'd find the same — the only difference here is that a leader moved out of his seat to contest elsewhere. Additionally, "Seat contested" is not the same as "seats contested". The latter is a figure; the former refers to an individual seat in Parliament (a constituency). I have added notes to the infobox to clarify this. I'll also change the name of the new variable to make it less confusing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's clearer now, but I still disagree. It would still confuse readers because it would look as if the leader contested the same seat as in the previous election, when in fact the leader have moved to another seat (which unfortunately, is located far down). I have left a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_election#leaders_seat and I hope this issue can be solved for once and for all. 175.139.196.14 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Wouldn't it be better to add a section regarding the criticism and/or the controversies of the elections? for example, a human rights NGO called Maruah, meaning dignity in Malay, has been monitoring the coverage of the elections in the local newspapers, which by the way are state controlled, has been observing that the coverage of the elections is rather pro ruling party. another example would be the violations of the terms of cooling off day by Tin Pei Ling, and the mystery surrounding the identity of this unknown "Denise He" who is said to have posted wrongly on her behalf? regardless of political viewpoints, i think that these matters should be included, to promote neutrality.Songjin (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Cooling-Off Day controversy is already in the article. I'm not sure too much more can be said about it that will remain neutral (as is obvious, a majority of opinion on that incident is anti-TPL). As for other issues, if they are covered in reliable sources, of course they should be added. But otherwise not (e.g. The Online Citizen is not a reliable source on its own, but in support of other reliable sources it may be acceptable case-to-case). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If the facts cause sympathy towards the opposition, representing these facts is not POV. It's just too bad the state press is actually, you know censored, and therefore saying that it is censored is not POV. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me some time. In about the next few weeks when my workload eases, I will be writing up the "Issues" and "Controversies" sections, including charges of media bias which is a constant complain, although many would note that some of the mass media outlets do try to establish some form of balance nowadays. More could be done, thou.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Valid/Invalid votes

The vote tabulations only include votes certified as valid. In previous elections the number of invalid (spoiled) votes was somewhat high. It would be improve the article to include the invalid votes in the tabulated results for each GRC/SMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtuckerkellogg (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving sources

Does everyone else agree it would be a good idea to use webcitation.org to archive all the online references currently used in the article? There's no guarantee they will stay forever and it'd be preferable to have a link one can refer to than to have a dead link. If there are no objections, I (or anyone else) will start doing so tomorrow. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, spanner in the works. ST.com forbids archiving of their pages... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Economist remarks!

http://www.economist.com/node/18681827?story_id=18681827&fsrc=rss

Useful things to use when we are trying to find RS for issues that dominated the net but didn't make it to the state press in the form we wanted. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

idea

Wouldn't it be a good idea to redirect 2011 Singapore (or Singaporean) General Election to this article? I'm sure some people have tried typing that in and it would eliminate the useless step of going through the "search by results" page. 68.58.79.163 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:PAP logo variation.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PAP logo variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File:SDP logo variation.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SDP logo variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File:PLDP variation.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PLDP variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Independents on Tanjong Pagar GRC

If I am not wrong, the independents is Socialist Front (Singapore).
If so, then can you change it?

They did not declare as being from the Socialist Front; only one of the team was actually a party member. To incorrectly state so would be introducing original research. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

yawningbread?

is yawningbread.wordpress accepted as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a biography....and furthermore, yawningbread is a respected activist with his own Wikipedia page. His commentary is definitely mentionable. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies, biography or otherwise. However, there is a little caveat in SPS that may indicate yawningbread might qualify as a reliable source: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Since this is not a BLP, and Alex Au's work in the Singapore political scene has been extensively covered by even the Straits Times and local press, he might barely scrape through. This is best discussed at WP:RSN, although blogs in general are not acceptable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken with a pinch of salt. Though this article is not BLP, if the analysis affects a living person, BLP rules still apply. Also I am afraid of this setting a precident that will filter back to the other articles. RSN is the best way to go. Also unless the analysis is reprinted as an article in a reliable third party publication, it is best to specify the exact source so as not to confuse it as having originated from the publication, especially when only partial quotes are taken out of context which does not match the context it is used as a source. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The main point from WP:SPS is that of peer-reviewed editorial discretion, which Alex Au is bound to have; blogs of most people are not acceptable, but blogs of experts are good candidates for sources. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned by Strange Passerby, it might scrape through, but probably on a case to case basis, and RSN will go a long way to clearing it for use as a source here. Zhanzhao (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Spillover from Balakrishnan article

Just a reminder that most of the points/changes/reverts debated here are already covered in the Vivian Balakrishnan article, don't make this a separate battleground. Also, try not to make it longer than how it was in the Balakrishnan article. Ita fairly ridiculous if it gets that way, considering it was not even a major issue of the election (well, he still won:P). Considering that its basically a duplicate of whatever is covered in the other article, it may even be feasible to just link it to the Balakrishnan article. Just a heads up that this is an option if the debate gets out of hand so that we can confine the whole debacle to within one article. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and suppress = dampen/reduce knowledge, conceal = hide. Conceal is a stronger word than suppress, and the meaning is slightly different in any case. So lets keep to the source wording. Can't recall, but if Balakrishnan phrased it differenlty, may be a good idea to use his own words, if its not too long, since it will be in quotes. But I digress, effort should be made to resolve in in the Balakrishnan article.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

He used "suppress" and it started from the video so am reverting back the sub-heading. Zhanzhao, can you or another editor (Strange Passerby) make the appropriate edits to Vivian Balakrishnan's part for this page then? Not too sure on yawningbread's part. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this summarises the entire issue succinctly. To merely put the heading as "suppressing a video" makes the header unnecessarily unclear. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Better unclear than add whats not in the original source. Also, avoid making headers unnecessarily long. IIRC when The Newpaper originally covered this, the headlines did not go into that much detail either, that was left to the article itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get how it's not in the source. It's in the newspapers clear as day: "PAP: Will Wijeysingha pursue gay agenda? SDP: No, we will not". (Where "PAP" is really Balakrishnan, since he represented them.) This editorial fuss is getting a little ridiculous. It's better to put in everything relevant from the cited sources, unless you somehow think the headline violates WP:UNDUE -- and I don't think so at all! Some Balakrishnan sympathisers obviously want to downplay his electoral gaffe post-election. The entire controversy after all, was about the accusation of a gay agenda -- all the major newspapers had "gay agenda" in their headlines. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your source quotes "Then came revelations of a recently uploaded YouTube video entitled Gay Agenda, with the PAP team asking: What was the SDP position on the issue?". The previous source quotes Balakrishnan accusing SDP of suppressing a video. Pick one for the headline or another, not both. Granted they may be talking about the samething. But its not up to us to extrapolate. As wikipedia clearly states, "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" counts as OR. The biggest gripe I have is the need for such a long headline. Compare it to the other headlines here its as if it was trying to be more outstanding with its exceptional length, compared to the other sub-section/main section headings. Not to the extent of UNDUE, but the spirit of it (drawing unnecessary attention to a specific section) applies. Keep It Simple. And lets not let personal passions affect the functionality of Wikipedia here. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am really puzzled by your comment since it is clearly not synthesis, since the videos are the same. "Putting an end to speculation, a People's Action Party (PAP) team led by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has confirmed that a videotaped discussion flagged by this newspaper yesterday on "the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore", was indeed the one to which the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports had alluded, in his recent remarks about Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate Vincent Wijeysingha." [1] If Balakrishnan confirmed it himself, I do not see what is the problem. It's not synthesis to say: he accused the SDP of suppressing a video; he questioned the SDP over what this video meant in terms of advancing a gay agenda, and putting it into one sentence. It's not synthesis, it's grammar. We're allowed to do that.

Also the headline is long because I keep getting reverted, I am simply trying to satisfy the reverting party, to no avail, who seems to reject every amendment I make. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The role of the header is not to inform about everything at one glance, but to identify in as few words as possible what the content is about. That means knowing whats the most important in order to keep them as part of the headline. Balakrishnan's act of accusation, SDP, and the alleged suppression video I feel are the most important. The nature of the video is important as well, but not as much as the earlier points I raised IMHO. And even so, the header is so long that it is already almoat spilling into a second line If I recall correctly, the first NewPaper article did not even mention the gay agenda, which is why I feel it can be left to be elaborated in the article body.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course the role is to identify the content as succinctly as possible; the most important thing seems to be the discussion surrounding the nature of the video, this is why is certain government-linked editors seem so intent on inserting it into the Wijeysingha's article. "Suppressing a video" is how Balakrishnan introduced the issue, but isn't necessarily how the issue should be described. The Watergate scandal, after all, was introduced to the world as a burglary, but that it is not how it is summarised by most people. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you look at the Watergate Scandal article, all the subheadings all were not more than 4 words. The closest to this would be the tape name headings, which was basically the names the tapes were referred to, which in this case we would have just called the the heading "Gay Agenda Video" as per the name in the original youtube link which caused this issue. That would solve my gripe about keeping the heading short... In any case, the current heading (A question) looks weird.... but I'll let the other editors take a whack at it for the moment. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Elle's edit is any better. Are you really picking a subheading for the issue or do you have a personal agenda once again (since you couldn't get what you want on Vivian Balakrishnan page? ) By the way, hope you remember that this is not a tabloid newspaper you are choosing a heading for.202.156.13.11 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Heading for Balakrishnan section.

Can we settle this here rather than the constant reverts in the main article? Based on the SPIRIT of the 3 revert rule, multiple editors here would have been sanctioned, possibly me as well I suppose. Lets do this systematically. List all the proposed headings here and we will trash it out here via either voting (risky due to all the anon IPs unless we restrict to registered editors) or preferrably a rational diacussion. I will start the listing with the existing heading, those who feel otherwise do list out what you feel is better below it.

• Balakrishnan accuses SDP of "suppressing video"
• Balakrishnan accuses the SDP of a "gay agenda" (note problems identified below)

3)

For the time being can we please hold off reverting/changing the heading? Thanks for your cooperation. I also hope editors and admins who have been lurking or passively monitoring the state of affairs to give your feedback, appreciations in advance. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the IP has not returned to discussion, if it was not sufficiently clear above, I think "Balakrishnan accuses the SDP of a "gay agenda" is the most succinct.

Balakrishnan's entire purpose was clearly trying to associate SDP with a gay agenda. Is this really in question? "They have clarified they're not going to pursue the gay agenda; we'll leave it at that. I think the voters can judge for themselves, and I'll leave it at that." [2] SDP had to declare this themselves. Balakrishnan does not have to issue the words "I accuse the SDP of having a gay agenda" (especially since he is a politician, and this is not wise) for the affair to be succinctly summarised as so. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned before, you would be introducing SYNTHESIS and OR if you just draw the points together yourself and combine them, even if you think it is really obvious. There is still the (unlikely) possibility that he heard of some potentially controversial video that the SDP was supposedly suppressing but he did not know the content, and when he found out, he challenged them on their intents. This could work witthout the accusation element. BLP dictates we not add these leaps in logic ourselves. But I will table your suggestion as part of the list

Really? I do believe our NPOV policy that we should regard the "unlikely" as fringe. Has any press source mentioned this "unlikely" possibility? If not, I do not think we should treat it seriously. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you reread how fringe actually works here. I am using the term "unlikely" as a matter of my personal opinion, not a belief held by the general populace or media coverage. Was there any poll done on this? If you are able to introduce some sources to that effect however, feel free to do so. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon rereading the source, it appears that it was Wijay that was questioned, the SDP was merely asked about their position on the matter. Which means (2) is technically wrong anyway.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

from ANI:

The source interpreted this as the entire party being accused. I believe it is correct to use this source's interpretation to support what is clearly obvious to everyone: Balakrishnan accused an SDP politician (and the party he represents) of having a gay agenda. That a press source made this interpretation should be sufficient evidence. The claim that Balakrishnan made his initial "suppressing remark" without consciously trying to insinuate that the SDP had a gay agenda, is a fringe claim and should not be factored in titling the summary. Plenty of press sources make this interpretation, and no press sources make any opposing interpretations.

Please avoid synthesis yourself. The idea that based "strictly on their original remarks" that it was possible, however unlikely, that Balakrishnan asked his "question" innocently is an original research statement unsupported by press sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that in this case I was merely explaining my chain of thought, I never used it in the suggestion of the headline, but rather pointing out a possibility that exists which could incur BLP issues. My suggested option still stays as (1) which was what the original headlines said exactly, so there is no synthesis on my part at all. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a headline used without knowledge of events to come -- in the Economist's words, a "PAP tactic". It would be blatantly anti-NPOV to play right into this tactic, especially from an international observer's POV. The argument against using a fairer headline, in which reports that Balakrishnan obviously insinuated something more than merely suppressing a video, is the "unlikely" claim that Balakrishnan could have made this suppression accusation without intentionally trying to cast the SDP of having a gay agenda. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The headlines in the link says "Low expectations: In Singapore winning 7% of parliamentary seats is tantamount to an opposition triumph". How exactly is this supposed to help us arrive at a better headline?Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm using the Economist's summary of the affair. How about Balakrishnan via his Facebook and the media began what can only be described as a smear campaign, accusing SDP of having “a gay agenda”. from Scoop (website)? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be very cautious with using Scoop's take as a headline because the quality of the article is in question. For one, the lack of identity of the author is a questionmark, also it seems filled with errors. i.e. the point I raised about how the author takes for granted that the SDP was being accused directly (how would the author know better, unless he/she had a separate interview with the minister, WV and SDP that transpired differently.... ), how the author quotes the common misconception that sex between 2 females is criminalized (it is only criminalized between 2 males). It can however be included in the writeup itself, provided that the claim is attributed to the Scoop, something that cannot be done in the headline.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

According to our own article: Scoop has won several awards for their work as a "community" news organisation. The site also received praise from the United Kingdom-based The Guardian and media critics.

Furthermore, the article basically confirms a suspicion widely echoed online. You can't selectively choose what is a reliable source. With its awards, Scoop clearly counts as a reliable source. I argue quoting an array of Singapore's most well-known blogs would actually count too, but this is also a good alternative.

Also sex between two females is criminalised in some contexts, and in the very least, stigmatised by the religious right; in any case 377A is hardly a good case for Singaporean sexual freedom.

In any case, the summary I wish to use is not OR, it is supported by both the summary given by TodayOnline and Scoop. Remember Zhanzhao, it doesn't matter what "the truth" is, it's reliable sourcing that counts. And in this case, the most straightforward way to summarise it to say that Balakrishnan accused the SDP of suppressing the video. It's the one that avoids the attempted whitewashing by socks with a COI, it is the most succinct, it's the one that respects the spirit of NPOV the best. Saying Balakrishnan only accused the SDP of only having "suppressed a video" would be giving undue weight to the unspoken or fringe idea that Balakrishnan made such video suppression claims without trying to associate the SDP with homosexuality. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Even the BBC has had its share of controversies, and thats by named journalists. As for awards, well, google "fox news awards", then check out the amount of controversial news they have reported in the past. As with your insistence with the Fann Simm article, one should not just weigh the source, but in certain cases the nature and reliability of the article as well. I am not saying that the source not be used, but that caution be used in quoting it. You would do well to look at the Talk pages for Meredith Kercher and Lara Logan where they constantly debate on what is acceptable and not for Wikipedia purposes, even when the information is being reported as news. The problem here is that what you are trying to add, even when it is not SYNTHESIS on your part, may instead be (in the case of Alex Au's source) commentary and OR in his own blog. In which case, attribute it to him. Else you run the risk of making what is fringe theory misleading as commonly reported news.

As for "widespread online belief", again, that is just a collection of personal opinions. Unless the sum of all these opinions is reported as news in one form of another and mention as it was reported, what you read online does not matter because it is unverifiable. I.e. seeing all the trouble you are having with all the misc IPs, imagine if an online campaign was started posting what THEY believe by pretending to be random netizens, would you have taken their noise as a rationale for including this "widespread online belief"? The "50 cent army" strategy can easily be run here as well.

Btw the <sex between two females is criminalised in some contexts> point is the claim made by the author of the Scoop article, not me. Which is wrong, as I pointed out already that it is only criminalized for males. 337A is a legal law, not some social stigma indicator. It is, as I said, a popular misconception, which makes me strongly believe that the author was just writing based on what he thinks he knows, not what he verified. As mentioned, for the TodayOnline article, Balakrishnan asked 2 questions to the individual and the party, the individual abstained, and the party answered the question that was directed at the individual. That did not show that Balakrishnan was directing the 1st question to the party. Which I already explained in ANI. The other admins get the point I am trying to make. Maybe you can ask them to break it down further for you.

And I find it ironic that you are the one quoting TRUTH at me. Considering I am the one asking for an explicit, reliable and verifiable source for your claims which can easily pass RSN. Which means mainstream (not necessarily Singapore) press coverage, not unidentified authors, "expert opinion" commentary or generic online sentiment. Stick with the verifiable and reliable facts. Then we talk about TRUTH.Zhanzhao (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get your COI tags. I'm a biochemistry student in an American university with an interest in democracy; I left Singapore a long time ago and pending extraordinary reforms, may not ever come back. The interests of the project has always guided my editing. Your comments, are to say the least, also confusing. I'm really puzzled at where the "synthesis" occurred.

Alex Au is a known expert and activist. You can't say "OR on his blog". That's misunderstanding what OR is. I advise you to actually read Wikipedia:Original research. Original research is synthesis of a novel claim strung together from primary sources, not found in any secondary source. But Alex Au himself provides a secondary source for analysis.

Also see this article from the Prime Minister's Office regarding lesbianism. It is hardly a "misconception" -- simply because various lesbian acts have never been prosecuted doesn't mean it's still a potentially-chargeable offence. In any case, I would appreciate if you treated my contributions with good faith. How is Scoop not part of mainstream press coverage? Al-Jazeera has anonymous authors too. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The COI tag was placed not just because of you (and I am not the only one pointing out you had COI issues, see the various ANI post as well as your talk page), but also for the anon IPs. This is getting out of hand and deserves more attention. As for "misconception", it still stays a misconception because there are no laws against it, and as long as it stays that way, it is not a criminal offense. Hence it remains in the domain of heresy and rumours, hardly wikiworthy. But as the clai, about a direct accusation did originate from the scoop, and is apparently the only newssource to carry this claim, proper attribution will make it clearer that this is the case(that it is only carried by scoop). Unless you can find other mainstream media that professes the same claim. Remember that other sources are merely making their own intepretations and commentary off the matter, not even reporting off a source, which is not on par with actual news. Plus Al-Jazeera has obvious leanings, which is why they are typically mentioned when news is referenced to hve originated from them.Zhanzhao (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the significance. LGBT interaction beyond male-male is not a "protected right" in Singapore. It is not the only newssource to carry this claim, when you pair it with TodayOnline. Al Jazeera has activist leanings yes, but their coverage has been respected since the Arab Spring.

Let's use the "spirit of the matter". Clearly, Balakrishnan's intent was more than to point out that the SDP (or one of their members, please note the use of synecdoche) was "suppressing a video". This just plays right into the hands of those who are out to whitewash his reputation. I also really don't care what the title actually says -- it doesn't matter that much to me -- but, we should send the message that those who edit with a COI on Wikipedia will not only be reverted, but in fact see their actions backfire. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, I am more worried about the potential dangers of threading into the grey area of allowing editors to freely add what they think is supposed to be obvious or common sense. Wikipedia does not work by expressing "spirit of the matter", which is open to subjectivity. It functions by allowing only verifiable and reliable sourcing as one of the highest form of internal quality control. That does not mean that I condone whitewashing. I am more worried that if all parties involved start bending rules which were set for a reason, it will get very chaotic. You may want to add your "spirit of the matter" to the article, but then so do the anon IPs who have been editing in opposition to your views. When you set a precedent of bending the rules, they have a "free license" to do so as well. Keeping the edits "clean and clear" also allows other admins to step in when things get out of hand, laying down the law BASEd on the law (as set by wikipedia policies) rather than step into a lawless zone and be potentially swayed by persuasive arguements from either party.

I apologize if it seems like I am pinpointing on you only, but sometimes, misunderstanding policies may be more dangerous than outright ignorance in all sense of the word ( since the latter are obvious and easily identified, addressed and ractified). On the bright side, due to ANI, the actions of the anon IPs in these articles that are being "whitewashed" are now highlighted to quite a number of other admins, which should make up for the lack of admin action which you said was a big problem with monitoring these articles. With more eyes here, irresponsible editing should be less of an issue now. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but my proposed title is not unprecedented -- it is supported by the summaries of two sources. You may differ on details, but we are not debating the details are we? They are already listed. We are simply debating how the article is best summarised, to which we can look to other sources' summaries of the affair. Call it the "gay agenda video affair" if we must. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you propose we remedy the COI problem? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For the COI tag, I suggest leaving it for at least a week or 2, this is to draw attention of new passing admins to this specific area. I realise that it is covered somewhat by NPOV, but since you pointed out your suspicion that the anon IPs have strong COI issues, it should be given this stronger tag as well so that the admins understand what the problems are and take actions accordingly.

For the heading, we must always keep in mind that detailed reports always outprioritise summarized treatments, especially if the facts appear to contradict. From the sources we have, the New Paper and Today Online are the most detailed, and specifically break down the different accusations and actions: Balakrishnan accusing the SDP of suppressing the video, Balakrishnan accusing the VW of a gay agenda, Balakrishnan asking the SDP of their stance on VW's alleged agenda, and SDP's reply to Balakrishnan. Summaries are ultimately just general intepretations and understanding of a situation, and might inadvertantly sacrifice minor quibles for wordcount. It is fine to have these intepretations in the text of the article, as attribution can be made in prose. Unfortunately it is impractical to do so in the heading. Imagine "Scoop: Balakrishnan accuses SDP of Gay Agenda". On that note, this is acceptable as an option:" Balakrishnan accuses SDP member of Gay Agenda".

Btw I just read the Scoop's submission guidelines, which says that they accept guest submissions, which is likely the case with the author of their article here, which explains the lack of fact checking as I noted above (i.e assuming female-female sex is criminalized in Saingapore). If there were some other reliable source i.e. an article by a named journalist  by another major international news outlet that made the same claim, there would be less objections to its verifiability and credibility of the statement you propose. But again, if summaries contradict detailed reports, detailed ones are preferred. After all, the summaries were in most likelyhood derived from these same detailed reports.

On a related note, commentary and opinion should not be presented in a way that is easily confused with actual news, and vice versa. Again, proper attribution will take care of this.Zhanzhao (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

hey zhanzhao, can you watch over Vivian Balakrishnan page? La goutte de pluie made loads of edits, including adding the Scoop reference. Obviously trying to be funny before she gets banned.202.156.13.227 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of Balakrishnan Section

Sort of related to the discussion above but more of an emphasis on the point of accuracy. Lets not deviate from the source, guys. If a source says VW is mentioned, mention him by name, rather than "SDP members". If a source sats Balakrishnan targeted his comments at VW, keep that explicitely clear and don't make it out as if he targeted the entire party. If the source says it one way, lets not put our own spin and intepretation to it, especially if source was provided for the entry that had already been very explicitly clear. At the same time, entries like the Scoop or Alex Au who do make intepretations are acecptable, as those entries are accurate to those sources and properly attributed. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the Scoop reference should be kept. It seems like a summary to me, when referencing, isn't it better to use articles talking about the actual event? Also Scoop article makes references from TOC. Assuming you don't accept TOC as reference, can an article written based on TOC be accepted? 202.156.13.10 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're out to game the system. TOC can be used as a source in certain special cases (especially when cited in conjunction with other sources), especially since itself has been covered in the press or has exposes of its own -- see The Online Citizen. I am not sure if get the idea of what sources are. Why are you so eager to disqualify an article from a verifiable source that cites the TOC? Many other external sources cite the TOC -- are you saying we should disqualify those? (And the article was certainly not based on the TOC. Dude.) elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

electronic Singapore press sources at RS/N 202.156.13.10 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that was their general use as a source; I'm going to make a more specialised request for specific issues. Furthermore, the mainstream press refer to TOC articles all the time, at their own discretion. I don't see why we can't use their reportings of the TOC; the main thing is that those who quote them have stricter editorial discretion than the TOC can officially confirm at this point. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also "limited use" does not mean "no use" -- furthermore, he was referring to the weakest of the sources at one point. In any case, I will make a more specialised request when I have the time. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is that editorial discretion was used though. I dont think anybody would have a problems if a reliable source quoted the TOC on a particular item, and that quote was used as content since that source would have gone through their own internal checks for reliability and verification. But quoting from TOC directly, for items that have not been QCed by external sources, as noted by your RSN posting, should be limited and not treated as if it was a typical source, and attributed as such if they are to be included. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I have been saying. I don't think we disagree on this. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

why did Elle remove the COI tag without consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchertoo (talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding an event into the Timeline info box under the Nomination section

Could someone please assist with adding the event "25 February" "Certification of Registers of Electors" into the Timeline info box under the Nomination section of the article. Thank you. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcmh (talk • contribs) 09:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for edit

Requesting permission to edit or assistance with adding the event "25 February" "Certification of Registers of Electors" into the Timeline info box under the Nomination section of the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcmh (talk • contribs) 03:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bcmh:  Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2020

Please include under New Candidates People's Action Party Steve Tan, NTUC Youth Wing leader (dropped out on 26 April) Tckisaac (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rummskartoffel (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lee Song Juan contested for SDA in Pasir-Ris-Punggol GRC

There is an error here. Lee Song Juan stood as part of the SDA's team in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. See the page at singapore.elections.com which has got it correct. I knew the late Lee Song Juan personally and he definitely was part of the SDA team. He was then aged 65. He was known by the English name Patrick although that was not part of his official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.252.68 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)