Talk:Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang C151A

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.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

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

Conspiracy theory

Please do not remove the conspiracy theory and whistle blowing section as the issue was spreading via social media.

The incident would not have made public had the HK-based FactWire broke the news when there was no inital response by the relevant authorities then. Sam 06:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)ussr_1991

This edit is heavily plagiarized and also copied the exact Q & A paragraph and pasted it into table form. This violates WP:COPYPASTE and should be reverted. Also, sources are one-sided as all of them are writen in China, with no other source to back-up, hence making it unreliable. 33ryantan (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dispute with the plagiarized part due to clear copy and paste from the Hong Kong source FactWire, if you insist that this is considered as a violation of WP:COPYPASTE without exception.

But the table form that I created contains the replies from the Singapore authorities, namely LTA, SMRT and the government's FAQ portal Factually. Therefore, the claim by 33ryantan of 'sources are one-sided as all of them are written in China, with no other source to back-up, hence making it unreliable.' is totally false. Hence, I will take a look how to explain the FactWire source and the initial press release from both SMRT and LTA as well as Factually Q&A quotes without copy pasting.

Due to the issue is a matter of public interest, hence I insist that the issue should be presented in a table form to compare against the claims from multiple sources. The original text in the paragraph form might be little biased towards Singapore government because the wording did not mentioned that FactWire first broke the news before the SMRT and LTA responded it except the last sub-paragraph.

As for the whistle-blowing part from China, it is just one of them. The reliability of such source is indeed questionable, but there are also other local source giving unverified rumors as well which I did not put on this article then. For a start, this is another source of whistle-blowing other than the China one:

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?232427-The-inside-on-LTA-Train-Debacle-Cover-up

Given that Wikipedia has articles that allowed quotation of leaks / unverified rumors from Wikileaks, including one on BM25 Musudan with alleged claims of Iranians possessing a North Korean missile without reliable evidence other than what US diplomats says, therefore unverified rumors from whistle-blowing sources should not be considered as unreliable source qualified for speedy removal.

Sam 14:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) ussr_1991

Hi, the recent change in this page are as follows:

1) An anonymous user (115.66.47.32) had changed the original text The authorities eventually admitted some flaws in the battery housing design, but did not acknowledge if the batteries and its suppliers were replaced or not. into The authorities eventually admitted some flaws in the battery housing design, and acknowledge that the batteries were replaced..

However, source from SMRT, LTA and Factually (Government official online FAQ portal) did NOT name the origin of the batteries involved both before and after the issue was rectified. Therefore, there is some inaccuracies by lumping the authorities response of battery issue as design flaw into flawed batteries were replaced.

2) Added original claim from FactWire about the 4 month long process to fix a single C151A train with some elaboration of the entire process. Initial response from the authorities did not comment on it until Factually acknowledge the process is indeed about 4 months per C151A train.

3) Added original claim from FactWire that at least 5 trains has replaced since 2015. LTA confirmed this ONLY one day after the initial press release with no mention on it @ Factually. See #Aftermath for more details.

Sam 17:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source for the actual contents of rumour 2? If secondary sources does not exist, then that whole section has to go. The notes already stated this particular allegation is baseless or/and conspiracy theory, and so there is no editorial reason to keep it. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mailer diablo, I am the one who linked the entire rumor section. I am also the one who made a separate note about the allegation *Might be*, instead of *IS A* baseless and / or conspiracy theory. Furthermore, given the Wikipedia article List_of_conspiracy_theories exists, I really see editorial reason to keep it as the authorities from Singapore was not forthcoming until the issue was blown up by FactWire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.147.72.130 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Sam 15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No original research. If another news agency or secondary source doesn't cover it, chances are it doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this a conspiracy theory page? I think this section is too focused on conspiracy theories as opposed to the train itself. You might as well make a page called "Conspiracies about the C151A" and see if wiki allows you to keep it there. The info is quite biased with forums and its just based on USSR 1991's opinion. "This story did not gain as much traction as the previous did, because none of the major mainstream nor alternative media reported it unlike the previous one." Is this sourced? No. You might as well focus on the Soviet Union pages as your style of editing is very propaganda-ish. 33ryantan (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree that the writing style to question the credibility of the 2nd rumor is opinionated and hence inappropriate. I have changed the writing style for this part but the purpose for the Aftermath & Rumors part are to highlight the debacle did not stop after Factually response made online. I would certainly agree that if the entire part below the "List of alleged flaws on C151A" is shifted to another article so as to avoid shifting the focus as well of this article's original intent. Sam 03:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang C151A. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/close/tenders_close_jan09_151a.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up"Operational Issues" section to meet Wiki Standards

Hi I can see the enthusiasm to list out all the possible information abt the operational issue of the train sets.

But however this may just cause many users to go confused going around the circle, or misleading readers to unintended assumptions.

Can the editors help to reorganise it in reader friendly paragraphs that gives an overview of each situation? Lyg 2001 (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

********

Also do kindly note that FORUMS AND ASSUMPTIONS are strictly NOT considered as reliable sources under the Wikipdia guidelines.Lyg 2001 (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from article. PLEASE RESOLVE reliability and ensure following Wiki standards before inserting it into article again, or permanently remove if irrelevant and proven assumption.Lyg 2001 (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

START

Rumors

List of rumors about the C151A operational issues on the Internet.
No.	Date of rumor first appeared	Allegations made	Response from the manufacturer of C151A (Kawasaki-Sifang, abbreviated as KSF)	Response from the Singapore authorities (SMRT or LTA)
1	4 February 2015	Anonymous whistle-blower alleged that: He is one of the member in a cover-up operation from CSR Sifang that involves forging of technical test data after the first C151A train was manufactured in 2010 November and CSR Sifang managed to deceived Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Land Transport Authority. The reason for the manipulation of data was because CSR Sifang could not satisfy the standards and the parameters set by Kawasaki Heavy Industries. About 70 people from various departments and their roles in CSR Sifang (as of 2011 November only) named. Among those named, they include: Top level executives (公司级领导) Overseas sales division (海外事业部) Urban division - Singapore (城轨事业部新加坡项目) Quality Control (质量管理部) Main Assembly Division (总装组) Translation division (翻译室). Apparently this department is involved to translate the technical data into Japanese and English for Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Land Transport Authority counterparts) Technical Engineering division (技术工程部) Manufacturing - Logistics division (制造本部物流中心) Corporate Planning division (企划部) Mechanical division (机械室) Manufacturing - Safety & Environmental division (制造本部安全环保部) Manufacturing - Procurement division (制造本部采购部)	Soon after this rumor gains traction from members of public within a day after the incident was made public,^[1] KSF issued a 2 page statement to refute this rumor about faking data on the defective trains as "groundless allegation of wrong doing" and maintained that "it has resolved and will resolve all issues satisfactorily". Specifically, KSF says that "KSF accords a high level of integrity when carrying out testing and commissioning works ... there are no ways to cover up any non-conformity to the specifications", and that "it reserves the right to take legal action against parties perpetrating the rumors.".^[2]	The Land Transport Authority has also refuted this rumor soon after as baseless and stated that the project is well supervised from LTA personnel on top of the contractor's staff.^[3] In the same press release, the LTA has also refuted the follow-up report from FactWire^[4] about the "thousands of brackets" used as part of the temporary workaround while waiting for eventual fix at Qingdao as false.^[3]

END

Hi Lyg 2001, the table above is well sourced from the government & train manufacturer refutation on a online rumor that has gone viral within 1 or 2 day. It is not an assumption, or merely a rumor that not worth a mention unlike the other one which was not shown above. Sam 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Whistle-blower alleges CSR Sifang submitted fake test data to LTA - The Independent, 6 July 2016
^ Consortium in train controversy breaks silence - Today, 11:41 PM, JULY 7, 2016 (GMT +8)
^ ^a ^b Consortium that built MRT trains 'had top score for quality' - The Straits Times, 8 July 2016
^ HK Government Tipped Off About Singapore Subway Trains Crackings A Year Ago, Emails Reveal - FactWire, 5 July 2016

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang C151A. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927090934/http://www.smrt.com.sg/Upload/20115161592799442.pdf to http://www.smrt.com.sg/Upload/20115161592799442.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.csrgc.com.cn/ens/xwzx/2009-05-13/1277.shtml

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) 11:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang C151A. 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) 13:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang C151A

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang C151A's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "thales":

From Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151: Fang, Joy (2 February 2012). "Coming: $600m upgrade for MRT system/New train measures a 'catch-up'". My Paper. pp. A2, A6. Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 13 May 2015. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang C151B: Fang, Joy (2 February 2012). "Coming: $600m upgrade for MRT system/New train measures a 'catch-up'". My Paper. pp. A2, A6. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
From Kawasaki Heavy Industries & Nippon Sharyo C751B: Fang, Joy (2 February 2012). "Coming: $600m upgrade for MRT system/New train measures a 'catch-up'". My Paper. pp. A2, A6. Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 13 May 2015. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

138.75.197.53 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to remove the link.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

138.75.248.139 (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to remove this

Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operational problems

The entire section is too ridiculously long, and filled with original research, allegations and anonymous whistle blowers. What's worst, the government's Factually website has take down its page and no one managed to archive it. Would anyone have an alternate source Factually is still live? Otherwise, a lot of it will have to go.

I have sent an email to Factually to restore the content, but I don't think they will. Seloloving (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[TISGAllegedFaked-1] Whistle-blower alleges CSR Sifang submitted fake test data to LTA - The Independent, 6 July 2016

[KSF2Page-2] Consortium in train controversy breaks silence - Today, 11:41 PM, JULY 7, 2016 (GMT +8)

[LTARefutesRumor-3] Consortium that built MRT trains 'had top score for quality' - The Straits Times, 8 July 2016

[FactWireWarnHK-4] HK Government Tipped Off About Singapore Subway Trains Crackings A Year Ago, Emails Reveal - FactWire, 5 July 2016

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]