Jump to content

Talk:Tony Tan/Archive 1

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

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and only?

[edit]

The article says, "From 1980 to 1981, Tan was appointed as the first Vice Chancellor of the new National University of Singapore (NUS), the youngest Vice Chancellor in the University’s history." Apparently this is directly copied from the NUS site, but surely the first will always be the youngest, oldest, thinnest and fattest? Jpatokal (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Tony Tan may have been the first Vice Chancellor in 1980, but if Mr Ah Kow, aged 18, is appointed Vice Chancellor tomorrow, why wouldn't Ah Kow be considered the youngest Vice Chancellor appointed in NUS's history? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing implies that he was the youngest at the time of appointment, which is nonsensical for a first appointee. Anyway, it's all rather irrelevant in the broad scope of things, so I've removed the claim and fixed the grammar as well: an appointment is a point in time, not a two-year job. Jpatokal (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Zquek, 25 June 2011

[edit]

I refer to this sentence in the Tony Tan Wikipedia Article:

"However, his decision to run for Presidency has invited the questioning of PAP's motives of a stranglehold on the position by pulling for a fellow long-time PAP member so as to avoid any questioning and inteference on the reserves and policies of the government."

I disagree with this sentence. This sentence is not objective and is merely the opinion of the author who had decided to include it. There is no citation from authoritative source in respect of the preceding statement. I think that an author, with clear conscience and integrity, should remove that sentence unless an authoritative material can be cited.

Zquek (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That sentence is potentially a violation of the Biographies of living persons policy, which stipulates that we need to be exceptionally careful when writing about real living people. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation: http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110624-0000250/Tan-Cheng-Bock-and-Tan-Kin-Lian-question-Tony-Tans-independence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedairman1000 (talk • contribs) 2011-06-25 21:38

Edit request from Unitedairman1000, 25 June 2011

[edit]

Competing presidential election candidates Tan Kin Lian and Tan Cheng Bock have questioned Tony Tan's independence from the People's Action Party.

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110624-0000250/Tan-Cheng-Bock-and-Tan-Kin-Lian-question-Tony-Tans-independence Unitedairman1000 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unitedairman1000: where exactly do you want this?
Everyone: is there any opposition to this addition? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this at the end of the Post Political Career Section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedairman1000 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition, so plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tony Tan and Mary Tan 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Tony Tan and Mary Tan 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. 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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved on the Commons side. Tempwikisc (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance during the Presidential Elections

[edit]

This page is highly likely to come under attack during the coming campaign, perhaps similar to the vandalism around 24 June 2011. Any admin is invited to keep an eye on it. Spore2011abc (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently intentionally misusing the term vandalism for your own gain. Cease and desist. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 08:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool down. For one, the comment is almost three weeks old, by a non-active (now) editor. Two, the article is already being monitored. Three, there is nothing wrong with just a cautionary remark. Anyway it is better to err on the side of caution for the time being as similar patterns were observed for the Singapore GE article. Its always good to have more eyes on articles, especially articles that we can reasonably expect to be targeted by anti/pro supporters of the subject, especially in the home stretch of the election petiod. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

This page has been subject to various attacks but presently appears to be based largely on reliable sources and is reasonably neutral. I'm removing the POV tag, but anyone wishing to reinstate it is welcome to make the case here. Tempwikisc (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the user who added the POV tag could indeed make the case here. Virtuaoski (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been more than a week, and the same editor has re-added the POV tag. I am of the opinion that the article is reasonably neutral. What is the section that is being disputed? What are others' opinions? Virtuaoski (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are some things that could be improved. There is little doubt to me, as a first-time reader of the article today, that some information is skewed pro-Tony Tan relating to the presidential election with a view to influencing opinions, but in my opinion (as I have mentioned below) that whole section needs to be split out anyway and once that is done, I would say it is reasonably neutral. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my above comments, as has been highlighted below in other sections by others, there is also POV and original synthesis being introduced that seeks to paint Tony Tan in an overly negative light; that also warrants a POV tag. A POV tag does not necessarily mean the article is skewed for a subject, of course. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I now understand and agree with your view. Virtuaoski (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

[edit]

I am not sure if this article needs a COI tag. Request clarification of La goutte de pluie's assertion: "Tempwikisc works in Tony Tan's office (by his own admission)." Virtuaoski (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the uploads of User:Tempwikisc and his OTRS submission. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked and I don't see it. Could you provide a link? Virtuaoski (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image used in this article was provided by an OTRS ticket issued from Tony Tan's office, after proceedings initiated by two major contributors in this article. While this is fine by itself, there is evidence that general promotionalism is taking place. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 01:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that Tempwikisc works in Tony Tan's office, but it is fine, but you want to keep the COI tag because general 'promotionalism' is taking place? I do not understand the argument, nor why the COI tag keeps getting re-inserted. Virtuaoski (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More COI editing

[edit]

Someone editing on the behalf of an employer? elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 17:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, there is no basis for such a strong allegation. Virtuaoski (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty easy to see that there are people editing on behalf of his campaign, in a pretty promotional and self-aggrandising manner. This is compounded on the fact that we already know User:Tangoromeo2 and User:Tempwikisc are both employees in the politician's office as evident by OTRS tickets for photo submissions, and both major contributors. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest why this is problematic. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if there are any others who share this opinion. Virtuaoski (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the COI tag is being re-inserted, but the basis for alleging this is still unclear. A stronger case should be made here to justify the tag. Virtuaoski (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing allegation

[edit]

Can I request a review of User:Off2riorob's edit here [1]. I think my revision has more felicitous language, and compensates for the promotional language of this article. For example, the language "had to refute allegations" is quite POV in itself -- factually, he was never under duress to refute anything. I also added a news ref from TodayOnline, so I would appreciate if someone reinstated that reference. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, IMO, was not POV-natured, although I would caution against giving the whole issue WP:UNDUE weight. This single article sums up the entire episode pretty well.
Also, regarding the {{COI}} tag, which part of the article is considered unacceptable? It's ok (though strongly discouraged) if someone close to the subject edits as long as (s)he adheres to WP:POV. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 00:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not NPOV; I'm fairly suspicious that the people who inserted "Mr Tony Tan helped the poor people in Aceh", "Mr Tony Tan had to rebut allegations online" (cuz he simply had to) and keep referring to him with the prefix of "Dr" is being done out of a campaign effort. The effect is subtle, or not so subtle, as you wish to see it. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly familiar with the issues so I won't comment on the article's POV problems. I imagine when he gets elected there will be a balanced cleanup effort. Regarding the use of "Dr," it's probably because most of the Singapore publications refer to him as such, though Wikipedia's manual of style doesn't allow it. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 03:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the language of User:La goutte de pluie's version, except that it should mention the Loke Cheng-Kim Foundation Scholarship. I agree that 'had to' generates a POV issue, but this may have been inadvertent. Virtuaoski (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of how notable the "Loke Cheng-Kim Foundation Scholarship" is, or whether it needs to be mentioned. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) 218.186.12.10 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Patrick Tan section requires severe cleanup

[edit]

Right now, that section seem too detailed than necessary, to the point that so e points are being repeated (i.e the repeated reiteration that quotes him on the point that due to the time discrepancy of his service and his son's service is repeated at least twice, just phrased differently), and e subjects replies were already expressed in prose, so there was no need to quote what he "said" word for word. AFG that this is not some attempt to pad that section of the article to give it UNDUE WEIGHT, I think a general rewrite is necessary. just keep it short, concise, and clear without reading like a rambling piece. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but words are being put into Tony Tan's mouth. Assertions such as "Tony Tan said that a conflict of interest was impossible" are simply not justified by the cited sources. Virtuaoski (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that to fight some of the promotionalism on this article, who would write statements like "oh of course he had to refute X" in order to downplay his statements as political moves. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 17:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting words into the subject's mouth is a very serious BLP issue, and is not the right solution to "fighting promotionalism". If that were the problem, the proper procedure would be to remove or tone the promotionalism down via ensuring guidelines like NPOV and UNDUE. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to be a fair paraphrase of why he mentioned it. Since you find it problematic, I have removed his mentioning of his MoD tenure in the Patrick Tan section, since we are unable to discuss of why this mention would be relevant. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 08:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the section and shortened it. It fits into one para now. Virtuaoski (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement with Cabinet

[edit]

"Tan joined other dissenting colleagues such as George Yeo in opposing the implementation of “integrated resorts” with their attached casinos to Singapore."

On George Yeo's wiki page, he is the one who proposed the Integrated Resorts (IRs) so how could he have oppose the IRs? Quoting from the article "Yeo proposed the idea of having Integrated Resorts (IRs) in Singapore, which would include casinos, which was intensely debated for a year." This is a logical contradiction as he opposed something that he proposed.

The line is unsourced though, so it will be good to 1) find a source for the above statement for this article and edit George Yeo wiki page (maybe he did not propose it?) 2) find a source for George Yeo's wiki page and edit the above statement 3) boldly edit the above as it logically contradicts the other statement.

--01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

George Yeo was the one who proposed the casino. I removed the part.202.156.13.10 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Busy in real life so no edits from me for now, but just want to point out that can we stick to the standard wordings and MoS that is found in other articles? Especially with the use of "Occasion"/occasionally. Such words are vague, and does not even tell the reader how much/frequent, which is why it is not used in writeups here. Better to stick with conventional wordings, then let the content speak for itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should actively resist, I think, playing into the hands of some editors with suspicious COI problems, who wish to stress his "independent mind" and his history of dissent as something that would occur more often than the facts would tell. Consider this edit. "Tan has an independent mind and possess[es] the confidence to express opinions which are contrary to those of Cabinet colleagues." This is not even in quotes. I think we should generally work to punish COI editing whenever we can. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 10:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Consider this edit" in Elle/LGdP's post just above was apparently meant to link to this diff rather than the one she provided. Permission granted for her to delete this, my comment here, if she corrects that link subsequently.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
And you are not well placed to be making those calls or decisions. The community has already spoken loudly at ANI that your edits in relation to Singapore politics are biased and you narrowly escaped a topic ban. You would do well to stop making controversial additions just to "punish COI editing". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of words Occasionally and Occasion

[edit]

As per MOS:Words to avoid:Editorializing, we should not be using words like occasion or occasionally. As highlighted by Zhanzhao, its unclear and also introduces bias as it is a "relative" and "opinionated" term. The guideline I mentioned is quite clear on this. And LGDP, the way to fight bias is to bring the article back to its NPOV state, not to go in the opposite direction. Oh I created this as a separate new section rather than continue with the previous section as they can be considered separate issues, as I do agree that the "independent mind" part should go. DanS76 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird edit / Library of Congress Country Studies

[edit]

Note I am copying the following question from another editor posted to my talk page regarding the edit and answering it here for simplicity sake.

As pointed out in Wikipedia:It should be noted, the fact and the wording you are using to introduce this new content is questionable and a strong sign of editorializing. Please consider the following carefully before you answer. Are you implying that NTUC's endorsement is a proxy endorsement by the PAP? Else I do not see a reason why that factoid should be included in this article or the Presidential Election article (to pre-empt). You should instead introduce it to the NTUC article or PAP article if you feel this is encyclopedic information. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This background is necessary to clarify the background in which the trade unions are giving their support; either this clarification should be added for readers, or the trade union endorsements (blatant POV pushing) should be removed or trimmed. I have since re-added dispute tags. Also, I am not implying anything -- I am starting sourced information from a perfectly respectable source. Are you saying the Library of Congress is not a reliable source? elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 18:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is covered under Wikipedia's NPOV tutorial regarding nuances and insinuation, on top of what I previously mentioned. Also the example quoted covers the party-centric general election, while the subject is being endorsed for the presidential elections, a non-party affiliated position, which makes its inclusion in this particular article and this particular section both irrelevant and misleading. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with User:Zhanzhao that referral to the Library of Congress Country Studies was not encyclopedic information, which is why I removed it when I first saw it. In addition, it insinuated a link to the PAP, for which there is no evidence. I also do not agree that factual mentions of the trade union endorsements would constitute "blatant POV pushing". Virtuaoski (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the endorsements by the trade unions are facts, and do not carry the implication that the candidate enjoys widespread & unanimous support amongst Singaporeans, which is the conclusion User:La goutte de pluie seems to be drawing (& opposing). —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 01:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is pretty blatant original synthesis. Lgdp: once again I will remind you that your edits on Singapore politics articles are already being scrutinised by the wider community, and you should stop making controversial additions that push the boundaries. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly synthesis; it gives background from a trusted secondary source; since the trade unions are making a political endorsement, it seems perfectly relevant to write about what the politics of those trade unions may be. I will request an RFC at Wikiproject Politics if necessary. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do so, as this remains unresolved. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loke Cheng Kim Scholarship

[edit]

I am not really convinced that mentioning this scholarship is that relevant for this article. It is a private scholarship and has no impact on NS decisions, and seems to be an astroturfing-attempt to needlessly prove Patrick Tan's resume. I have since removed it accordingly. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 18:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, phrases such as "seems to be an astroturfing-attempt" are very strong, and there is simply no evidence to back up this baseless allegation. I will now explain why it is important to mention the Loke Cheng-Kim Foundation Scholarship. Based on the available information, it is clear that the Loke Cheng-Kim Foundation scholarship provided the funding for Patrick's undergraduate and post-graduate studies. The President's Scholarship is primarily for recognition and only provides a small bounty, and is always awarded together with another scholarship, generally the OMS, SAFOS and SPFOS. It is important to indicate which other scholarship was awarded with the President's Scholarship, as it would indicate the terms of the scholarship, in particular, what period of study is sponsored (and therefore the duration of NS disruption). By the way, it would also indicate the expectations for service (under a bond period) after the completion of studies (e.g., many PSC scholarships are limited to undergraduate studies only or whatever post-graduate studies can be completed within the same study time period, generally of four years). The mention of the Loke Cheng-Kim Foundation scholarship is critical because it provided Patrick with the funding for not just undergraduate studies (like most PSC scholarships), but also post-graduate medical studies, which explains the long duration of NS disruption granted in 1988. At the same time, the mention of the President's Scholarship is important, not for Patrick's resume, because it was the basis upon which NS disruption could have been granted; without the President's Scholarship, NS disruption would not have been granted. Virtuaoski (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought it was pretty obvious it's related to the President's Scholarship. Didn't I mention it above? 202.156.13.11 (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The scholarship is hardly notable or worthy of mention. Googling the scholarship brings up the foundation's website, and then this article. There are little independent third party sources covering this scholarship. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained why its mention is critical in order to explain the long duration of NS disruption granted. Virtuaoski (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all necessary for international readers. at which the article should be aimed. Furthermore, we do not have an article for the scholarship, and we will likely never have one. Mentioning the scholarship is simply WP:PUFFERY. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that Wikipedia can be useful for all readers. The mention of the scholarship is not puffery and does not even resemble the examples cited under WP:PUFFERY. In particular, the article does not use any adjectives to describe the scholarship; it just factually states that Patrick disrupted his NS under a President's Scholarship and a Loke Cheng Kim Scholarship. I repeat, "I have already explained above why its mention is critical in order to explain the long duration of NS disruption granted." I have also explained that nobody is only awarded a President's Scholarship; it is always awarded with another scholarship, which determines the terms of the scholarship. And just because the Loke Cheng Kim scholarship is low-key and has little Internet presence does not mean that it is not notable; that is a leap of logic. Virtuaoski (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:notability; notability is determined by the quality and quantity of third party references, not the "the truth". This scholarship should be stricken from mention accordingly. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as User:Virtuaoski explained, the Loke scholarship is not meant to stack on the scholarships received, but to clarify which other scholarship did Tan Jr received in addition to the President's Scholarship for for those familiar with the issue. There is no intent to puff up the biography. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
President's Scholars have to be on another scholarship with less prestige but more money such as Overseas Merit Scholarships.202.156.13.238 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM

[edit]

Details of Tony Tan's presidential campaign in this article would seem to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. It would be better to leave a summary section here, and instead create an article like Tony Tan presidential campaign, 2011 similar to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if there will eventually be enough material to form a totally separate article though. Presidential elections are not on the scale of presidential elections in other countries, though this recent one is bigger compared to past ones. Anyway editing and additions to the article seems to have trickled off after the election, so the tags may warrant removing soon, IMHO. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"premedical studies"

[edit]

I am afraid our IP editor is a little misinformed about American education. No school offers "premedical studies" -- what students do is complete an undergraduate degree while fulfilling premedical requirements. If one fails to get into medical school (for reasons of the MCAT and so forth), one still has a baccalaureate but has certainly not completed premedical studies. The article should reflect the actual (well-sourced) state of affairs in America. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor is not misinformed. The term "premedical studies" is a well established one, with a specific meaning. U.S. colleges do offer premedical studies, and how they do so is well described by Yale University's Premedical Studies website. For the article, either term is fine, although I find the use of the term "premedical studies" more specific and logical when taken in the context of the scholarships' requirements. Virtuaoski (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a formal course of studies. That is simply a list of requirements for applying to medical school, i.e. advice. Some Singaporeans may not get the concept of how liberal arts works in America. No one gets accepted into any Tier 1 school on the basis of being a premed. Seriously. Undergrads yare expected to change majors and most premeds, even from Yale, do not make it to medical school. To say Mindef allowed him to attend "that school in Boston" for premed is saying he was guaranteed to get into med school following completion of his bac. While one can be so smug in that opinion, that guarantee is not a concrete fact. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only point on which I agree with you is that pre-med is not a formal course of studies. The issue at hand in the editing of this Wikipedia article is not whether pre-medical studies is a formal course of studies, but rather, what phrase is most appropriate for the article. Since the section reports what Patrick Tan said in his statement, the use of "premedical studies" (a phrase that is easy for both experts and non-experts to understand) is justified. (By the way, the technical formulation provided by Mindef was, "a pre-medical component for a general undergraduate degree", but that was not what Patrick Tan said. If you desire to introduce Mindef's formulation, then the main article should still report what Patrick Tan said, and separately mention and cite Mindef's letter.) Virtuaoski (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge of how the premed system works requires no "expertise"; MINDEF's formulation is more accurate. I will add some clarification accordingly. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny how La goutte de pluie rejected the ST letter claiming it has nothing to do with Patrick Tan's NS disruption but persistently insist it addressed about Patrick Tan's pre-medical studies. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 09:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC), both La goutte de pluie and the 202.156.13.* IP are at three reverts on WP:3RR and should seek to discuss the issue here and not revert further. Further reversions will be reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my latest edit on this difficult issue is acceptable to everyone. I restored some material from MINDEF's letter that I feel is relevant in explaining the long period of NS disruption. I also restored Tony Tan's mention of his defence tenure in an appropriately nuanced manner. Virtuaoski (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tan Keng Yam and the Graduate Mothers Scheme

[edit]

Given the initial COI in which that section was written, I can no longer accept with good faith that the statement that Tony Tan opposed the Graduate Mothers' Scheme would be supported by the random book source cited. I have temporarily removed the statement; I support restoring it if we get some more sources on the matter, and what exactly Tony Tan said, and whether he ever backtracked on any statements. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 09:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use the sources outlined here. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 09:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sources, it becomes obvious Tony Tan as Education Minister announced the abolition of the scheme in 1985, but that is only the schoolgoing priorities part, and it is a singular event (as opposed to continued dissent as the problematic paragraph portrayed). I am trying to find sources on his actual opinion before that announcement, or what sort of dissent would have occurred with Cabinet colleagues. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 09:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you could have just modified the IP user's words. That same source says the scrapping was in response to widespread criticism due to the general election of 1984, and only note that Tony Tan made that recommendation in some random Cabinet meeting in 1985. It did not ever say that he was against the scheme all along (as the paragraph would have us perceive) nor did that paragraph mention the 1984 elections. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 09:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right that it doesn't, however, the source does support the fact that he opposed it and brought it up to Cabinet. Probably on its own not enough to justify the OR that was there, but certainly enough for a shorter one line blurb. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified it accordingly, mentioning the election pressure this time. The amount of dishonest reference-manipulating COI editors will go to is worse than I thought. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 10:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anti Ong Teng Cheong POV

[edit]

Not surprisingly, this article isn't very kind to Ong Teng Cheong, who became even more popular among the common population following his decision to endorse the strike, and the article rehashes common public relations excuses like "we need to protect investor confidence", and Ong Teng Cheong here is portrayed like a wildcat (and even on his own biography). I suspect academic sources are a little more mixed about the issue than what the original COI contributors to this article have written. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your effort to improve the content here is appreciated, and understand the need for context, but isn't this a little too much information about OTC in this particular article? Also I removed the word "only" because it is a very strong statement to make, as the ministry has other concerns rather than just foreign investments, even if it is a very strong concern at that time. Also the bit about LKY could be better written, as it is unclear if LKY's comments were a result of TT's replies or a reply to the strike. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way too long. Busy expanding such sections again, I suppose. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section was critically important in Singapore's history. OTC and Tony Tan's conflict is far more significant than the silly WP:RECENTISM that dominates the presidential election section. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 22:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is undoing work that I am trying to establish on Singaporean history, which I have been interested in since 2004, on the basis of his little petty vendetta. There's no point to removing the redlink to leadership transition in Singapore -- this was a notable phenomenon that I am about to write on and heavily impacted Singapore. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 23:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting consensus

[edit]

Hi, can people please input their insights on the Ong Teng Cheong section. I feel the current section is actually too brief, and more history would balance out the WP:RECENTISM of the elections; furthermore, discussing Ong Teng Cheong's motives seems actually relevant. I do agree that my original version was originally too long, because then I was drafting material in general on the affair; I moved a lot of it into Ong Teng Cheong's article, and will probably import more info into redlinked articles in time, and three editors helped me summarise succinctly (which I thank them for), resulting in a more felicitous revision here. I would like to go back to that summary. I believe highlighting Ong Teng Cheong's motives versus Tony Tan's motives would of historical insight to the article (I intend to add more references).

The original mention that "Tony Tan's disagreement with OTC over the strike" was originally used in a POV/promotionalist sense as an example of his "independence" -- I do believe that in response, OTC's motives and interests (in contrast to that of Tony Tan) should be mentioned (but also kept cogent and concise) to balance out such COI. This would be fair to both Ong Teng Cheong and Tony Tan, and result in greater knowledge for the reader. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would get rid of the Michael Barr paragraph and leave the rest in, as that paragraph is the only one that does fit in with this article (about Tony Tan); its about a totally different to what the the subject is involved in, and is more suitable to be mentioned under another article; either OTC or the Labor Relations article. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Tan supporters tried to portray the strike as some freak strike that "that crazy OTC" tried to implement on a whim, needlessly jeopardising Singapore's economic reputation. That paragraph is necessary to explain the context of the unions' discontent. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But these are already addressed in the closing paragraph and OTC's response in e quoted interview in that same section.... Zhanzhao (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exception to usual MoS practice

[edit]

Since all four major candidates have the last name "Tan" -- wouldn't it be appropriate to call him "Tony Tan" throughout the article? It's still quite short. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.193.21 (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. While there is numerical majority for the move, several arguments boil down to "there are other Tony Tans", which is not a policy reason for move. In contrast, opposes by Amakuru and In ictu oculi stress that the Singapore president is most frequently called just "Tony Tan" in English media, and that he likely constitutes the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among the namesakes, as indicated by incoming links and pageviews (420:188:3 in 2016) for the president, the enterpreneur and the other politician respectively; that does make its primary status challenged, but not decisively so. No such user (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– The current Singapore president Tony Tan is often referred to in other encyclopedias [2] and Singapore's media [3] [4] as "Tony Tan Keng Yam". As per WP:PRECISION, "Tony Tan Keng Yam" would be precise enough to refer to the person concerned. I believe that it would make more sense, in the context of Wikipedia, for the title "Tony Tan" to be used for the disambiguation page. -- YewGotUp (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose yes local sources like The Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia have a MOS which does do combined Chinese-Western names as you've shown. But outside Singapore English sources just don't do this. You'll have to make a case for Singapore English to be applied - which in the case of locally notably names yes maybe. But this is the president and his name is all over international media. See GNews. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Filipino founder of Jollibee receives ~24% of the traffic. [5] I think that's enough to challenge the Singaporean president's primary-topic status, and keep in mind the 24% would be higher if the baseline is a dab page. (Also notice that the President of Singapore is a largely ceremonial position.) Timmyshin (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are 1065 Tony Tans on LinkedIn.sg alone.[1] The current title name is way too imprecise. Jane Dawson (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For clarity's sake, since the there's already a couple of other Tony Tan articles here. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We have two politicians named "Tony Tan". While "Singaporean president" would be plausible for this person, "Singaporean officer" or "secretary-general" would be harder to describe for the other politician. Therefore, I think that natural disambiguation is more plausible for consistency's sake, even though there is Tony Tan (entrepreneur). Alternatively, I don't mind "Tony Tan Keng-yam", but I couldn't find sources using the hyphen. --George Ho (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per IIO. The Singapore president is clearly the primary topic by significance and common usage, and English language sources don't generally use the longer form of his name. The status quo is absolutely fine and correct here.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tan is the romanised word of one of the most common surnames of the Min Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia (Chen) and the pinyin romanisation of 譚 which is the 67th most common surname in China. If I'm not mistaken, Anthony/Tony is quite a popular name in Asia as well (at least for the older generation). A search on Google for me shows 4 Tony Tans on my top 10 results - Tony Tan the Pres, Ming Tony Tan (Georgetown University), Tony Tan (CFA Institute) and Tony Tan (MMA fighter), more if I search on Duckduckgo. I would also argue that the following international news providers use his full name as well - Guardian, NYTimes, ABC, Jarkarta Post, El Mundo, WaPo, Reuters, Forbes, Xinhua etc. Michi (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

While we are at it, fix Tony Tan (entrepreneur) to Tony Tan Caktiong too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Dawson (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=tony+tan+linkedin
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Tony Tan. 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) 16:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Tony Tan. 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) 02:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Tan/Archive_1&oldid=1136227471"