Talk:2017 Singaporean presidential election

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

A news item involving 2017 Singaporean presidential election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 September 2017.

Wikipedia

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

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.

Protection

~~I think this page should be temporarily semi-protected or subjected to pending changes review till after the election owing to the incessant disruption as can be seen in the recent edits.~~ Ammarpad (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of references questionable

I feel that this article is not really well referenced. Are references from The Online Citizen and The Independent really reliable? This article is kind of slanted more towards the negative instead of being neutral. Consider having more references from The Straits Times, The New Paper, Channel NewsAsia or Today. 2679D (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 12 references out of 71 are from TOC and the Independent. Majority of the references are from ST, TNP, CNA and Today, all of which are government controlled media, so are you suggesting we read only the good stuff on Wikipedia? Jane Dawson (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2679D, I have the same concerns as you, which is why I changed some of the citations to CNA and Today. But some of the news quoted in the article were factual but not covered by mainstream media.

For instance:

1) The Change.org petition calling for an open Presidential election was only reported by Mothership and TISG

2) Cancellation of Gilbert Goh's Hong Lim park event was only reported by TISG

3) Former MP Inderjit Singh's criticisms of the PE on Facebook was reported by TISG, Yahoo News and Mothership

On credibility

TOC has its editorial bias but it is mostly factual. I have serious issues with TISG as a source (they have bad fact-checking) but if they are the only ones reporting on a factual event, I'm not sure if we should dismiss them. Mothership, Yahoo, TOC, TISG and The Middle Ground are all licensed with Media Authority of Singapore, which gives them uh.. some sort of legitimacy I guess. Redwire as a source is a definite NO in my opinion.

More neutral tone is always appreciated of course. Michi (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. 2679D (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: citation for "the President is required to be non-partisan"

Constitution, Art. 19(2)(f).

As per President of Singapore [49]. 45.74.77.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]