Talk:Ah Beng

Singapore Mid‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Malaysia Low‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original research

I'm not sure why this is listed as original research. I live in Singapore and I do not see how these statements are factually incorrect. Not all social phenomena are documented in books and papers. If these primary sources do not exist, does it mean that this article is not worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia? --Rifleman 82 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources at all, then an article is unverifiable. Readers and editors are not expected to take the personal testimony of Wikipedia editors for things. If the article is a novel synthesis or analysis that isn't supported by what the sources actually say, or is simply something that hasn't been documented before, then it is original research. See also Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Uncle G 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen Wikipedia:No original research and the article as it stood did not fall under the category of according to Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? as I saw it. Perhaps the existing {{unreferenced}} was more apt. Also, I checked out the many "See also" links on the Ah Beng article and many were unreferenced as well, indicating either that standards were being applied unevenly or that nobody had come round to adding appropriate tags.
  That said, I have listed two references which describe Ah Beng. The former - the Coxford Singlish Dictionary - is rather reputable as a source for Singlish words. The latter, a personal webpage, is less so, but that's the best I could find. I'm sure you understand how cultural terms can be difficult to pin down in scholarly publications. --Rifleman 82 18:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A dictionary isn't enough of a source to hang a whole encyclopaedia article on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unless the dictionary actually states things such as "Ah bengs typically speak local slang", then all that it is a source for is the part of speech and meaning of a word, which isn't what an encyclopaedia article is about. (Encyclopaedia articles aren't about words. They are about the people/places/concepts/events/things that the words denote.)
    No, standards are not applied unevenly. But yes, not every article that is unverifiable or that contains original research has been tagged. The culture of strong sourcing was absent from Wikipedia for quite some while, and we have quite a mess, and editors who don't believe that they have to include sources in articles and back up what they write with sources because they've never been held to that, as a consequence. But strong sourcing is here now.
    Articles on pejorative stereotypes are original research magnets. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogan for a full discussion of this.) And whilst it is difficult to pin down scholarly publications, it is not impossible. Also, academic journal articles are not the only potential sources. See chav for how an article on a pejorative stereotype can and should be sourced. Uncle G 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I see your point. I've added more information and other cultural references backed with citations to beef up the article. If you have any decent institutional access to news databases, they should not be hard to chase down.
      Do note that Singlish and the Ah Beng culture are discouraged by officialdom which may explain the little discussion in local newspapers, etc.
      As an aside, I am assuming good faith in your comments and I hope you do likewise. --Rifleman 82 12:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope someone comes back to fix this article. Either reduce in scope or simply remove large chunks of it.

In any internet forum in Malaysia, Ah Beng always refer to guys who have weird style and taste. Such as wannabe, over modified car or person who have weird fashion. why you guys keep revert it?
- I don't know about the reverting, but it is not proper English anyway. I'm not a native speaker, but in my opinion the following would be correct: "When used in internet forums in Malaysia, Ah Beng refers to male individuals who have weird style and taste such as wannabes, owners of over-modified cars or individuals with a weird fashion style." Still, the questions remains whether this is relevant for an encyclopedia. FelixKaiser 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup

I removed the stereotype about cars, of all the stereotypes, those are the hardest to verify. It also could be outdated. Also removed some stuff repeated twice in the article. Its much more readable in this format.Kalandra (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ah Beng. 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) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]