Jump to content

Talk:Pink Dot SG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I don't see why this should be speedily deleted... It's about a first time event in a very conservative country. A8UDI 16:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Dot SG was Singapore's first public gay pride event given extensive coverage in the international media. User:Groyn88
I can't find any reliable third-party coverage (blogs and social networking sites don't count as reliable) and there is none listed, so to me this fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added links to the BBC and Straits Times articles in the preambleUser:Groyn88

Thanks to Pink Dot SG committee members, Dominic Chua and Izzie Salleh, for drafting this article.User:Groyn88

Conflict of interest

[edit]

Groyn88 has already been identified as having COI. He has implicated "Dominic Chua" and "Izzie Salleh" as also having COI. Does anyone know if they have accounts on wikipedia and if so what are the account names? – Lionel (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The article is purely promotional with extremely poor sourcing. The fluff needs to be trimmed, and if there's nothing left, then the article should be deleted. The creator of this article Groyn88 and the founder of Pink Dot, a Dr. Roy Tan, are one and the same. – Lionel (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reports in The Straits Times, Lian He Zao Bao, Yahoo! News and Channel News Asia are not "fluff"! Why did you remove those links?User:Groyn88

Pink Dot was not organised by Roy Tan

[edit]

Pink Dot was not organised by Roy Tan. Verification required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kantashi (talk • contribs) 10:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it is bleedingly obvious that the doctor is claiming it for his personal glory but if it cannot be substantiated or verified as challenged by Kantashi, I'm all for the omitting of the doctor's name. However, at this moment, his name is indeed mentioned in the sources, perhaps as damning evidence of the doctor stealing the limelight for his own socio-politcal gain? Anyway, he has deemed all of Wikipedia to be deletionist in nature when he is obviously the deluded one and conveniently oblivious to the fact of our standing guidelines and policies for editing to further his own cause, as evidence by his rampant copyrights violation with his illegal upload of images. FWIW, write only what can be substantiated or we will just delete them but as for those cannot be, please kindly omit them. Thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entry Reads Fair, but incomplete

[edit]

There is no mention of Roy Tan even on Pink Dot SG's official website. The entry no longer reads like an advertisement. However, more research needs to be done on the organisers behind Pink Dot SG, and its impact on the lives of LGBT people in Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonleong123 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources don't demonstrate notability

[edit]

At Wikipedia, entries must be sourced to reliable secondary sources in order to demonstrate notability. The encouragement of new users is a good thing, but we can't ignore our policies just to encourage new users; that doesn't help them get acclimated. By learning about how to properly write and source articles - rather than being single-purpose accounts editing promotionally - new users can become productive members of Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhanzhao: @ReflectionWiz:, would you like to talk about it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am not convinced about your point about "poor sources". Most of the stuff you removed are basically just information about the PD events around the world. And as I demonstrated, one needs only make a little effort to just source for alternative references to add to the article, rather than take the easy way out of deleting it. If your concern is about it being primary sourced, WP:SELFSOURCE already has provisions that would allow primary sources to publish info about themselves provided it does not violate certain conditions (which I do not see them as violating). Plus WP:NOTABILITY also clearly states that "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list". So in both cases, you've actually been barking up the wrong tree.
And ReflectionWiz has been editing since 2008, and me, since 2007. Both of us have decently clean records (his is perfect, and I got penalized for the same one infraction in my "early career" which I have seen gotten over).... so no, he isn't a new user, and neither am I, even though I'm newer to this topic. We may not be as active as you, but I think we're more than able to discuss this matter with you on equal standing.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not get into credentials right now because I don't think that would reflect well on at least one of you, and I'd prefer to focus on the topic if possible.
I disagree that the removed material doesn't violate WP:SELFSOURCE's instruction not to be self-serving or base the article largely on primary/unreliable sources. By that interpretation of the guideline, we could effectively reproduce someone's entire website - free hosting! if only more companies/people/organizations knew! This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article on Pink Dot, though, meaning that we should be writing it based on reliable secondary sources and only using primary sources for small details that RS haven't picked up (say, hypothetically, if we wanted to include the founder's name and RS didn't mention it, but a primary source did). We can't be basing so much of the article on the organization's own website, press releases, affiliates etc. (and yes, one of the new sources you added was a press release and another is affiliated with Pink Dot). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(To be clear, there may well be enough secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the Pink Dot event - but if we're going to cover all of these disparate events in different countries, we might do well to consider notability of each of them, rather than relying on the notability of the biggest one to insert anything we please for any vaguely related event.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I only highlighted what you called "credentials" to point out that neither of us were "new user"-name. Indeed, credentials checking would be embarrassing for some of us. As mentioned, I've started the ball rolling by looking for non-primary sources to verify the primary sources. Though as you rightly pointed out, there are some info that only primary sources would provide. Saying this equates to free PR is pushing it though, cos you might as well say all these other sites carrying info that you removed are in on it. Press releases when carried by other agencies mean they have been approved by the agency, which makes it a non-primary source. Its no different from quoting syndicated news.
I gotta say, I'm not sure which link you seem to think is affiliated to Pink Dot. I've only added 3 links so far: 1st was a film school's website, second was Yahoo, and third was a "events listing" site. Do clarify which you think is affiliated to the subject organization please. Or was it a mistake on your part? Zhanzhao (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ReflectionWiz mentioned the encouragement of new users as a reason not to delete text. I didn't find this very convincing. You should review WP:RS, as press releases are absolutely not reliable secondary sources and are not the same as news. The film school website explicitly points out that a founder of Pink Dot is an alumnus. Again, it doesn't mean the information in primary or otherwise affiliated sources isn't true, but at Wikipedia we also use sourcing guidelines to determine what it's appropriate for the encyclopedia to cover. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait.... Just because an alumnus of a school is supposed to be a founder of a group, means the group is affiliated? You do realize that by your logic, the opposing political parties would be "affiliated" to their schools, since the leaders and many members might have been from the same school - by extension meaning opposing political parties are affiliated as well. I really can't buy that reasoning. Might as well take out any local news that reports about the accomplishments of its citizens while we are at it....
I'd also like to point out that instead of wholesale deleting content, you could have alternatively practiced copy-editing as well. If you're not happy with how some parts of an article is written, re-write them. Your mass deletions included deleting chunks concerning events taking place (event, time and location info which is very objective). If you felt some parts, especially the descriptive parts, were self-glorification/marketing, feel free to trim those down, since those parts are more subjective. Especially if they were from primary sources. But not the parts stating which events took place when and where, as those are pretty much factual and acceptable from primary source. Even press releases. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good Day Rosceles! Sorry been busy these days due to university examinations. I would like to say I really appreciate your effort on trying to make this article better! But, I do hope you realise that we have been editing and contributing to this article the past years and improved/expanded it from the stub it has been. Over the years I've strive to expand on the content and scope and include neutrality and the various viewpoints by the different sides of Singapore and international community. I trust all three of us has good intentions for the article and ,in general, content on wikipedia content. I would like to say that I believe the article consists of a significant balance of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Of the primary sources used I found were used objectively, factual, encyclopedic and non-interpretative. They were used in the event that no non-primary sources exist to provide essential significant facts beneficial/informative to the general wikipedia reader. I have also found other sources were used to provide only factual information. (Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible... When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. WP:SCHOLARSHIP)(WP:NOR) In areas that you disagree, please do not cut them out, I am more than willing to improving them! In the meantime, I have examinations till end of next month and will take a look at the whole article again and look for better sources where available, and cut out unnecessary bits. Honestly, I found it rather hurtful to have my content called "fluff". I admit I may not be the best contributor, nor do I have your experience but I am willing to accept your kind advise and guidance :)! Thanks Zhanzhao for all your help as well! Let's all work towards providing accurate information on this significant, one-of-a-kind LGBT event in "Disneyland with a death penalty" Singapore.ReflectionWiz (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As on the topic of encouraging editing. Well I would consider myself to a new contributor comparing to your veterancy. I have to use guidelines of wikipedia to defend myself. Firstly, I think the assumption of good faith would help of which I have accepted your GF WP:GF. Let's discuss before we delete stuff. WP:DE. Let's be friendly. WP:EQ. and let's take it easy. WP:BITE. Well... Wikipedia encourages us to be bold! WP:BB. So do help us solve the problems we have! Deleting is not the solution. WP:EP.ReflectionWiz (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Tango Makes Three

[edit]

I removed the section on And Tango Makes Three as the content is not directly related to Pink Dot SG; it's more like this group happened to notice the book issue around the same time, not that they noticed the books because of Pink Dot SG. The information can already be found on the And Tango Makes Three page.

If the group used specifically used their opposition to Pink Dot SG to launch their attack against the books, there might be justification for a sentence or two on this page to link to the Singapore controversy on the And Tango Makes Three page, but not to duplicate the entire saga. (And the word "saga" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia account of what happened, but that's a separate edit.)

The account that I removed does have some information that is not in the account at And Tango Makes Three. Someone familiar with the content might want to move the removed content over to that page. If you do, please consider making the Singapore controversy a subsection of the Reception section of that page due to the length and its placement after a summary paragraph.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soh Ee Shaun source needed

[edit]

The citation given for the designer of Pink Dot does not mention Soh Ee Shaun and may not qualify as a reliable source anyway. Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Pink Dot SG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Pink Dot SG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pink Dot SG. 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) 15:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from a newbie copy editor

[edit]

I’m brand new to Wikipedia. I saw this article needed a copy edit (and I’m a copy editor IRL) and so I have done that, but I have some remaining questions:

1. In the intro, I wonder about the phrase “free-for-all event”. Do you think they mean “free event”? “Free-for-all” means a chaotic situation or even a brawl, which certainly doesn’t seem right. But I’m hesitant to change it to “free” as that does change the meaning. 2. In the description of Pink Dot Utah, the sentence mentioning the legalization of same-sex marriage feels extraneous and unconnected to the event. I think maybe the sentence should be deleted, but if it is to stay, I think a better connection to Pink Dot Utah needs to be established. I’m not sure what to do about this. 3. I noticed a few reference links are broken/no longer active. Is it considered a copy editor’s job to track down new, appropriate references? Or just mark them somehow? (If the latter, how?) 4. Do you think I can remove the comment at the top of the page about the article needing a copy edit? Or shall I leave it until some more experienced Wikipedia editor looks at the article? 5. I’m open to any other constructive feedback you may have on what I have or haven’t done with this article. Thanks!

Ashram molter (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We could certainly use more editors with copy-editing experience!
  1. I agree, "free-for-all" could be misleading. That the event is free and not-for-profit is perhaps something that could be omitted from the introductory sentences, which we would like to keep short and pithy and include only the most important information from the body of the article.
  2. It looks like the mentions of non-Singapore Pink Dot events are a form of WP:COATRACK. To fix this, the article would have to be recast as about Pink Dot events generally and not specifically about the origin in Singapore. This is not a simple copy-editing fix, we may need to get a more experienced editor to step in to make more major changes.
  3. Broken references can be marked as dead with the {{dead link}} template. This is less desirable than finding replacements or archived copies, but it's certainly acceptable to just mark them for someone else to work on. What should NOT be done is remove references simply because their URLs have gone dead.
  4. As you are a relatively new editor, I suggest that you wait for another editor to remove the maintenence template at the top of the page.
  5. I'm going to turn off the {{help me}} template for now, since that raises some alerts that are not well focussed on getting the attention of editors interested in this particular article. You could perhaps post at WT:WikiProject Singapore to get some more attention paid to this page.
I've looked through a few, but I'm afraid not all, of your recent edits and they appear to me to generally be perfectly acceptable improvements. The one I might quibble about is the removal of the brackets around actor Ebi Shankara. If it seems reasonable that there might be an article about Ebi Shankara in the future, we generally prefer to leave the brackets - see WP:REDLINKS. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, jmcgnh! (And sorry, I don't yet know how to "tag" your name appropriately. So many things to learn!) Anyway, this is all very helpful. I've deleted "free-for-all" and "nonprofit" from the intro. Good point about the fact that the article's content goes well beyond a focus on Singapore; I will leave that to others to figure out how to address. I'll see what I can do on the references -- thanks for that info. And I'll leave the copy editing maintenance template up for now, as you suggest. Thanks also for turning off the "help me" template. I wasn't sure whether that was needed to get someone's attention for my questions. If I hadn't included that, who would know I had questions here? Perhaps anyone who has the page on their Watchlist? Anyway, thanks again for your help. Ashram molter (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_Dot_SG&oldid=1212619665"