The issue originally was the word change, which I imagined would be entirely uncontroversial.  A separate issue then became the attacks on me from all sides led by Dave1185, to which I responded angrily.  My anger has then been used to justify the original attacks.  The issue here is still the word change.  The other issue, you can discuss elsewhere if you like.  On the word change, it still seems very simple to me.  Slavishly adopting the wording of the source is wrong.  The word "said" is entirely neutral, while the word "explained" carries connotations that the article should not be carrying.  It doesn't matter at all if the source said "explained".  Insisting that a word must be used because it appears in the original source makes a complete mockery of the concept of writing an encyclopaedia. The aim here is a bit higher than a massive copy and paste exercise, is it not?  Anyway, it seems to me from the source that Lee did not "explain" or "say" but the Singapore government did.  So, where it says "Lee explained..." it could say "The Singapore government said...".  This is accurate and neutral.
 Incidentally I think the protection of this article is a disgrace, and looks to have been done simply to gain the upper hand in this strange dispute.  There is no "persistent sockpuppetry". 2.220.204.70