# Talk:Disneyland with the Death Penalty

"reactions of Gibson's sort implicitly withold the intelligent use of the attainments of modernity from those who are not its natural descendents."
Can someone put this in plain English, please? If Singapore citizens aren't "natural descendants of modernity" (did they live on the Moon for the last 200 years?), then who they descend from? NVO (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That you would have to ask Mr. Koolhaas, I'm afraid. We don't do translations.

the skomorokh 12:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Disneyland with the Death Penalty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I will review. @harej 10:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): see below
b (MoS): Nothing egregiously wrong, though there are some terms which should be linked. Furthermore, the "related topics" section is usually branded "See also". I would change this, but I want to see first if this was done deliberately.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Everything in the article is attributed to a source.
b (citations to reliable sources): Yes
c (OR): No original research

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Yes
b (focused): Yes

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: As far as I can see, this article is objective in its coverage.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: No edit wars.

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Everything is properly tagged, though File:Aereakowloon.jpg is available simultaneously in the public domain and under a copyleft license, making it both copyright and uncopyrighted, which I am not sure makes any sense.
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes

Overall:
Pass/Fail:


### Prose issues
"in relation to the pristine state of the Changi Airtropolis" — I believe pristine is the wrong term here. "Pristine" means very old and yet untouched, which does not suitably describe an international airport.
"Beyond the airport, he notes the cultivation of the organic environment into "all-too-perfect examples of itself", an abundance of golf courses." — Can you clarify what this means?
"Punctuating the article, he quotes a headline from the South China Morning Post detailing the trial of a cadre of economists, a government official and a newspaper editor for revealing a state secret – the Singaporean economic growth rate." — How does a quote punctuate an article? Also, what is the significance of the growth rate being a state secret... does it emphasize Singapore's obsession with capitalism, or its secret nature? Please clarify.
"Koolhaas argued that reactions of Gibson's sort implicitly withhold the intelligent use of the attainments of modernity from those who are not its natural descendents." — I notice that this was raised on the talk page. While I understand that we can't interpret what his words mean, I am not convinced this sentence means anything at all and is even worth including in the article.


### Response
Namaste, harej, and thank you for the swift review. I'll respond to the issues you have raised by topic area; if you would prefer threaded discussion please feel free to move my comments to the appropriate places.

MoS: I recently delinked a lot of terms following WP:TONYLINKS. The section is intentionally titled "Related topics", as that is a more encyclopaedic title than "See also" in that it describes the content of the section, has a formal tone and does not direct the reader.
Image licensing: I believe what happened with File:Aereakowloon.jpg is that it was originally uploaded as public domain, but a GFDL tag was added in this edit, and the GFDL status was subsequently migrated to the Creative Commons license. I imagine the application of the GFDL was inappropriate, but either way the image is free to use on en.wiki.
Prose issues: I apologise in advance here, as I am not a native speaker and spent much of the article trying to avoid plagiarism and repetition, so awkward phrasings may be present.
I've replaced "pristine" with "immaculate".
By the organic environment having "all too perfect examples of itself", Gibson means that the ostensibly natural flora has been "improved" artificially by landscaping, horticulture etc.
Quotations punctuate Gibson's article by breaking up the prose in the way a period breaks up compound sentences–just as how quotations and images are used in this article.
Gibson gives no context or commentary on the "Finance Data a State Secret" story. To write one would be original research, to omit mention of it would be to fail to synopsise the article.
Regarding the Koolhaas line, I believe it certainly has meaningful semantic content:
Qua Koolhaas, Gibson is the amused Westerner who sees the non-Westerners have appropriated much of Western technology/customs/culture ("modernity") without understanding it, producing—to Gibson the Westerner—bizarre, inauthentic and unpalatable results. For Koolhaas, Gibson's article contains the implicit claim that these non-Westerners should have followed their own organic mode of development (like Nairobi, or Bangkok); not to have built over their historical architecture for example, and should not have aped the worst parts of Western modernity. This claim would be, for Koolhaas, to tell non-Westerners that they cannot have the benefits of modern progress, which is condescending and prejudicial.
I'm reticent to dumb it down as it might introduce an unwelcome element of original research. Koolhaas is one of the most prominent figures in architectural criticism alive today, and it's the punchline of the whole critical reception section. I'm open to ideas on this point.
Thanks again for the review, and I look forward to your replies. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses. I am an inexperienced reviewer, so I will put the article up for a second opinion. @harej 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem, thanks again, and I hope you keep up the reviewing—this review struck a good balance between thoroughness and relevance I think. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


### Second opinion
Related topics
Regardless of how nice it works WP:LAYOUT says "see also" in the WP:SEEALSO section. Wikipedia standard applies here.
"Beyond the airport, he notes the cultivation of the organic environment into "all-too-perfect examples of itself", an abundance of golf courses." — Can you clarify what this means?
You should clarify it. If the reader has to question what he is trying to portray then it would help to add a few words summarizing it.
"Punctuating the article, he quotes a headline from the South China Morning Post detailing the trial of a cadre of economists, a government official and a newspaper editor for revealing a state secret – the Singaporean economic growth rate." — How does a quote punctuate an article? Also, what is the significance of the growth rate being a state secret... does it emphasize Singapore's obsession with capitalism, or its secret nature? Please clarify.
"Punctuating" line would be better in an essay. If an explanation is OR then "punctuating" is clearly commentary. The line also doesn't say the headline and the em dash is overly dramatic since it leaves the reader expecting more. Try rewording the complete line.
"Koolhaas argued that reactions of Gibson's sort implicitly withhold the intelligent use of the attainments of modernity from those who are not its natural descendents." — I notice that this was raised on the talk page. While I understand that we can't interpret what his words mean, I am not convinced this sentence means anything at all and is even worth including in the article.
It is bulky and has caused an editor on the talk page to ask about it and another to attempt an interpretation. Add the reviewer on top of that and it is obviously  not necessary here. You are allowed to summarize it especially if you chose not to use quotations as you did. I also question its necessity especially when considering the other quotes in the section. Removal or reworking the line are needed.
I also notice that the captions for the images are too long. This causes an aesthetic concern as well as taking the focus off the prose. Shorten them up a bit and they will be great. Take a look at MOS:IMAGES and the related links.
The reviewer should also compare it to User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet. I have found that this is a great resource even if it is not perfectly followed.
The second opinion always comes across harsh but it is not meant to be. Overall I think the author did a great job and should be proud. All of the suggestions above are easy fixes and will improve the article which is a big part of this process.Cptnono (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cptnono for the second opinion. Don't worry about appearing harsh, please don't hold back – improving the article is the idea and we won't get far without being open about quality/problems. I hope to get to the comments in the next day or so. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
On Related topics: WP:SEEALSO does not proscribe alternate titles for such sections–these were only omitted from the guideline for brevity.
Harej has clarified the golf courses sentence.
The em dash is from the South China Morning Post article itself: "A government official, two private economists, and a newspaper editor will be tried jointly on June 21 for revealing an official Singaporean secret - its economic growth rate". Do you think it necessary to the headline entirely?
I'm not especially beholden to "punctuation", but in moving from a synopsis of Gibson's characterisation of the political history to a synopsis of the newspaper article, even an encyclopaedia article needs a transition phrase. I've reworked it; comments invited.
I was the editor who offered the interpretation of Koolhaas on the talkpage. The account is already reinforced by the secondary literature (Delbeke, Tang); further interpretation should not be necessary. The section has been reworked and expanded.
I try in captioning to describe the image and outline how it relates to the topic, following the MoS ("Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article"). That's going to be difficult if they are going to be any shorter. I've removed the quote from the skyscrapers image and abbreviated the Kowloon caption; please advise on whether this is sufficient.
Thanks again for the review,  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Remark I'm surprised that the critical reaction section doesn't describe more about Singaporean reaction to the term. Are the sources lacking, is there censorship, has the Republic of Singapore chosen to officially ignore it? I mean, last I checked, this kind of prominent article about a country is the sort of thing that provokes a national uproar in small nation-states. I don't think this is a bar to GA, necessarily, but it is a surprising hole in the coverage. RayTalk 18:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources; I used literally everything reliable I could find online. Remember this came out before the ubiquity of the web in a country that employs neither the English language nor the Latin alphabet to the extent of the West – not Google-friendly. If you come across anything, I'd be more than glad to integrate it. Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I was intrigued by Skomorokh's message, so I ran a Factiva search on the term "Disneyland with the death penalty" to see if there had been any Singaporean news reports on Gibson's article. I did not find any; the only references were to the bare fact that Gibson had once called Singapore by that epithet. It therefore appears that the article has not figured on the Singaporean radar at all, either as regards the government or the people. Kudos, by the way, for an interesting and balanced article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious: all Singaporean media are government-controlled, and they censor everything that does not paint the country in a positive light.  (Which is why Wired was banned.) Jpatokal (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Wired is certainly not banned in Singapore. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So, any outstanding issues chaps?  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to wait for the original reviewer. It doesn't appear that the are coming back but as the second opinion I am going to pass this article after reading the comments by Jack Lee. I still believe that the caption for the skyscraper image needs to be reduced but that shouldn't stand in the way of promotion. Cptnono (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Great thanks to Cybercobra, Ray, Jack and especially harej and Cptnono for all the helpful commentary and support – it's remarkable to have so much constructive feedback and advice on such an article! Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't this article's definition of Singapore qualify it as fascist? I mean that entirely in the serious way, not as the epithet. I think it at least deserves to be in the 'See Also' section. Ursus Lapideus (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is more appropriate for totalitarianism, now that I think about it. It is also less offensive so I added that at the end. Ursus Lapideus (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Back in 1993 this issue of Wired  was named issue 1.4, not 1.04 as it is presently known as on the Wired website. 
For proof I scanned in the first content page of the issue. SpeakFree (talk)  15:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks! Skomorokh 15:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Web archive of this image, the original has long since been deleted from TinyPic.com: http://web.archive.org/web/20120926070944/http://i56.tinypic.com/312d2lj.png 145.129.74.92 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone clarify the difference between the two contents? They sound similar.123.243.68.243 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How can William Gibson have made any conclusions about the current state of 21st century Singapore in 1993? Nil Einne (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good question -- and as far as I can see, he doesn't? Jpatokal (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

From this article: "...and cited the accusation of Singapore-based British academic John Phillips that Gibson 'fails to really think [his critiques] through'"
This article links to a John Phillips who died in 1987. --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disneyland with the Death Penalty. 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/20081003031216/http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/writing/uwc2101k/index.html to http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/writing/uwc2101k/index.html
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) 10:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Disneyland with the Death Penalty. 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://www.webcitation.org/6Dv83sre0?url=http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/why+burma+was+crushed/884147.html to http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/why+burma+was+crushed/884147
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107045122/http://www.spell7.net/paulrae/1012.pdf to http://www.spell7.net/paulrae/1012.pdf
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) 04:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As this article had received quite a lot of critical reception both negatively and positively over the decades since its release, I'm adding the word controversial to the article to reflect that. In addition, the last sentence in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV, but instead of removing it I've added a citation tag as it's possible that it was included in the article, though it can't be proven at this current point due to how archaic and outdated the article has become since its publication in 1993. Lastly, I don't think this article no longer fits the criteria of GA and should be reassessed, 11 years is a long time. I await other viewpoints from other editors. Feinoa (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I will address your concerns.
I'm adding the word controversial to the article to reflect that  - for this we require citations in due weight that have recognized that the article is controversial. Could you find some citations for this? What you are doing here is termed as original research.
In addition, the last sentence in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV - I would like to know how it violates NPOV.
I've added a citation tag as it's possible that it was included in the article - in that case would you go through all the citations in the article and let me know if you are very sure there is absolutely no citation for this.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


### Removed image of Kowloon walled city
Feinoa, your edit [1] also removed an image. Would you explain why it was removed?--DreamLinker (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


### Undesirable propagation unit
Feinoa In your edit, [2] you tagged He finds the selection in music stores and bookshops unrelentingly bland, musing whether this is partially attributable to the efforts of the Undesirable Propagation Unit (UPU), one of several state censorship agencies. as citation needed. As this is a summary of the article itself, it can be verified from the article text. Here is the actual text from Gibson's article 
Although you don't need Mormons making sure your pop is squeaky-clean when you have the Undesirable Propagation Unit (UPU), one of several bodies of official censors.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
DreamLinker The thing is, there is no evidence whatsoever of an 'Undesirable Propagation Unit (UPU)' ever existing in Singapore. I've tried looking everywhere, and it only leads back to this article. A lot of things in this article can't really be stated as fact, which is why I added a citation tag. Feinoa (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Feinoa This is a summary of the article by Gibson. It is not stating it as a fact, it stating what Gibson wrote. The article about Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) lists the plot summary, even though obviously Harry Potter doesn't exist.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The sentence - "Though Gibson's first major piece of non-fiction, the article had an immediate and lasting impact. The Singaporean government banned Wired upon the publication of the issue, and the phrase "Disneyland with the death penalty" became a byword for bland authoritarianism that the city-state could not easily discard." How is that not original research and someone's personal opinion? And there's so many issues with the article. Looking at the edit history they seem to be a lot of conflict about it too. This is what you call a good article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3959.647.3471.5366a (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 

As noted in the HTML comment, "could not easily discard" is a summary of the rest of the article where citations can be found (cf. MOS:LEADCITE), for example the John Kampfner quote that you deleted without explanation.
"Looking at the edit history they seem to be a lot of conflict about it too." - The sentence in question seems to have been uncontested for about a decade until recently, when a since blocked user and their sockpuppet started to edit-war about it.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: 3959.647.3471.5366a has since been blocked indefinitely as well. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: User:Heinzoller, who since tried to repeat this unexplained deletion and other POV edits, has been blocked indefinitely has well. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: Other new accounts have since been blocked indefinitely for block evasion as well, after trying to reinstate some of the same POV changes and making other problematic edits (e.g. tampering with a quote): User:A339 [3] and AlbertTilzer [4]. editorializing ("Ironically").
The latest attempt, including e.g. the faked quote, is by the new editor Tonlip.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Reiterating my edit summary and further as it seems like HaeB (based from above) is policing this article according to their biased views – I'm going to need elaboration on what's "misleading" about these – 

Is William Gibson an American-Canadian or not – yes or no? (Here's a link to Neuromancer or perhaps his own article which I've already linked for your answer)
Does Disneyland itself not originate and exist in both Anaheim, California and Orlando, Florida respectively, located in states with an legally enforced death penalty, which Gibson compares Singapore to despite the latter not having a Disneyland which therefore indicates irony – yes or no? (Capital punishment in California, Capital punishment in Florida, Walt Disney World)
The text "The Singaporean government banned Wired", is there actually a source specifically stating about that actually happening (i.e. Wired itself getting completely banned from Singapore) considering that the magazine has always been widely available in the country? Here's a link to Wired's latest monthly edition for September 2020, freely available to borrow from the National Library Board of Singapore which updates the magazine regularly with no restrictions and therefore available to purchase from bookstores. Wired's publications were also available for borrowing during the prior months with their previous editions. This September–October 1993 publication itself was not even illegal to read in Singapore nor treated like a criminal offense. And so – yes or no? If not, why is that constantly re-added back?
Being of a non-fiction work, wouldn't italicizing the book title be more appropriate and pertains to consistency as specifically stated in MOS:EMPHASIS and MOS:ITALICTITLE? – yes or no? One can refer to his other works such as Distrust That Particular Flavor, Agrippa (A Book of the Dead) and No Maps for These Territories for undisputed inspiration. In fact, all books, non-fiction or not, are italicized on Wikipedia. (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird.)
Are there any reliable sources that actually shows the term being used outside of the Western world (e.g. Asia and Africa)? – yes or no? Because It's not stating anything from the only source provided and is therefore non sequitur and ambiguous. The "source", which was published on an American publishing company by a writer named "Laura L. Adams", who had only wrote 3 publications from 2003 to 2007, the last being this itself, merely leads to an abstract where accessing the full version online for only 48 hours requires a fee of $7, and a PDF download costing $42. Are we expecting editors to pay up to verify the source? The other source from John Kampfner dating back from 2009 is also just another non-fiction book from a British author (just being born in Singapore doesn't change that, as he grew up and was educated in the UK and is not a citizen), who claims that the phrase is still being used by "detractors and supporters" while lacking anecdotes and examples. According to his page, he does not live in Singapore but in London, which he stated on his interview with The Guardian. Therefore, it's a source that leads back to Gibson's piece itself when he first came up with it, not a secondary one. It's like citing a work with itself, treating himself as an outside observer and not using the term to actually describe the country.
Was Rem Koolhaas's response to this piece on his book S,M,L,XL not one of criticism, where he found it acerbic, eurocentric, ironic and patronizing? – yes or no? As quoted from the text, Koolhaas argued that "reactions like Gibson's imply that the positive legacy of modernity can only be intelligently used by Westerners, and that attempts such as Singapore's at embracing the "newness" of modernity without understanding its history would result in a far-reaching and deplorable eradication." What does that sound like to you?
Gibson came up with this piece in 1993, almost 3 decades ago (27 years to be exact as of 2020). A lot has obviously changed since then in the 21st century. A mention of the time frame of when this was written is vital in the lead as its important for the reader to understand that Gibson's observations and claims of Singapore to come up with his opinion piece was made during the early 1990s. This was even first mentioned on the talk page 8 years ago in 2012 by another editor. Gibson himself never did revisit this piece or gave a sequel except for a prompt non-update throwback in his subsequent anthology book which had also included other of his older works.
In conclusion, who's actually misleading who? I hope this clarifies any doubts. Unless all these questions are properly answered, I can only assume subsequent reverts are one of unjustified hostility to other users due to their own personal bias and views, therefore violating the core principles of Wikipedia. I can see that based on the edit history that this has gone on for far too long with no end in sight. Thank you for reading.
Regards, 
183.90.36.39 (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I refer to the IP above and see that this is still not addressed and that the article continues to be plagued by dated information and inaccuracies. @GorillaWarfare: I see that this article is now locked as well. What are my options in attempting to fix this article? I don't have an account. 183.90.37.65 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Mostly ones that were addressed above.

1. Wired is and was never banned in the country. That should be removed. Could some Singaporeans or perhaps people actually living there confirm this? (@Deoma12:, @KN2731:, @Darylgolden:, @Justanothersgwikieditor:, @JaventheAlderick:, @Gandalfett:, @Flipchip73: @TheGreatSG'rean: @Seloloving:, etc. I might have missed some, it was a quick search to see active ones)
2. William Gibson is an American-Canadian and his nationality should be mentioned in the lead (see Neuromancer).
3. Italicization of the article name as it's a major non-fiction work. (MOS:MAJORWORK)
4. Mentioning when this article was actually written (1993).
5. Mentioning that the actual Disneyland locations in California and Florida, where Capital punishment are actually legal, alludes irony. This was explicitly mentioned by Peter Ludlow and Rem Koolhaas.

--183.90.37.65 (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Like the sockpuppets that have been blocked before, 183.90... continues to make one misleading claim after the other (including faked citations and tampered quotes), some of which are hard to explain other than as intentional gaslighting attempts.
Regarding 1.: Contrary to what 183.90... claims, the article is citing a source for the statement (and has done so for over a decade), it's just located further down on the page. Per MOS:LEADCITE, repeating such a citation in the lead section is not required. That said, to discourage further trolling attempts of this sort, I have just copied that citation to the lede too. What's more, the original research offered by 183.90... to "prove" that the source was wrong is a total non sequitur - it's entirely possible, even likely, that such a ban is no longer in force today after 27 years; there is no contradiction here.
Regarding 4., the publication year is already mentioned, right at the beginning of the article (second sentence).
Regarding italics, Gibson's nationalities etc.: That's not why several different editors reverted 183.90...'s recent edits, it's because of ban evasion, NPOV violations (e.g. adding snarky "ironically" editorializing in Wikipedia voice), insertion of unsourced and factually dubious claims, misleading edit summaries, the repeated faking of the Ludlow quote etc.
Lastly, the above edit request post seems to be in violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Response to 1: Even if it WAS banned (still not verified), the current text implies that it still is. After all like you said, it's been 27 years. Furthermore, doesn't mean it has been around for a decade implies that it's written in stone. It's just that this article barely gets any attention and is therefore left outdated for years. Per WP:CITE, every source can be challenged. The source that claims Wired being banned in the country could not be verified and lacks inline citation. It's literally just a word of text that claims it was sourced from an article on the Boston Globe from 1995. How do you prove it? Is there an archive or link to the actual article, or even a another source that supports such a claim where it explicitly mentions such a ban? As per WP:BURDEN, it lies with you to demonstrate verifiability and not constantly restore the same material. Using your words, the current source sounds like "factually dubious claims" to me. Meanwhile, there are secondary sources that shows it not being banned, especially today.

Response to editorializing claims: You do realize it was Peter Ludlow himself that came up with the "ironic" word, right? That's literally what he said in his work. The source is literally right there. Your constant personal attacks coming from an established editor, is seriously unbecoming of you.
Italics, nationalities etc.: So a contributor suggesting such changes for consistency as per WP:MOS and MOS:MAJORWORK is wrong now, then? What makes this article different than say Count Zero or No Maps for These Territories, other science/non-fiction works of Gibson that is indeed italicized and has his nationality mentioned? Because it kinda sounds like you're the one that's just making up dubious reasons at this point. You're more than welcome to elaborate as to where and what about Ludlow's quote that was being "faked" as well.
Lastly, I looked up WP:CANVASS. This is an edit request. No one's trying to establish consensus or a vote here. As per WP:APPNOTE, this article is a part of the appropriate WikiProject which they are mostly involved in. You would think one should know better of Wikipedia's policy guidelines especially considering that they have been here since 2003.
183.90.37.65 (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: These IPs are undoubtedly being used by WP:LTA/INTSF, who has attempted to WP:RGW on this page numerous times. This page is protected specifically to prevent him from making the changes he is requesting, which have been soundly defeated by consensus, policy, and WP:BANREVERT. He should not be editing at all so he is no longer entitled to re-open this discussion. —{Canucklehead} 23:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Do allow a non-involved editor to see through this edit request, it's obvious that the decline was definitely baseless, filled with accusations and not assuming good faith as none of these requests are vandalism or unreasonable and that the user was also previously involved in this article, reverting a contribution.

1. Wired is and was never banned in the country. That should be removed. The source that claims Wired being banned in the country could not be verified and lacks inline citation. It's literally just a word of text that claims it was sourced from an article on the Boston Globe from 1995.
2. William Gibson is an American-Canadian and his nationality should be mentioned in the lead (see Neuromancer).
3. Italicization of the article name as it's a major non-fiction work per WP:MOS and MOS:MAJORWORK. (see Count Zero or No Maps for These Territories, other science/non-fiction works of Gibson that is indeed italicized and has his nationality mentioned)
4. Mentioning when this article was actually written (not the publication) in the lead (1993).
5. Mentioning that the actual Disneyland locations in California and Florida, where Capital punishment are actually legal, alludes irony. This was explicitly mentioned by Peter Ludlow in his book ("Since these articles are an attack on Singapore, it is ironic that the real Disneyland is in California—whose repressive penal code includes the death penalty") and Rem Koolhaas.

--183.90.37.65 (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done:This is obviously a repeated request which has been rejected multiple times. But I will still answer
Wired is and was never banned in the country. That should be removed. Wrong. Please cite a source which claims "Wired was never banned in Singapore". We have sources which show that Wired was indeed banned [5], [6], [7] (alternate link [8]). There are more available in the archives.
William Gibson is an American-Canadian and his nationality should be mentioned in the lead No. There is no specific need for this as long as the author has an article. To Kill a Mockingbird and A Christmas Carol don't mention the author's nationality.
Italicization of the article name as it's a major non-fiction This is also a common phrase now, so it's debatable if it really should be italicised.
Mentioning when this article was actually written (not the publication) in the lead (1993). I am not sure what you mean by "when this was actually written". We only have reliable citations for the publications dates and that is already mentioned. The common practice for literary works is to usually mention publication dates.
Mentioning that the actual Disneyland locations in California and Florida, where Capital punishment are actually legal, alludes irony We need to go by due weight and avoid editorialising (as someone mentioned earlier). The content in question is already there in the article, but it's not "weighty" enough to be in the lead. This was explicitly mentioned by Peter Ludlow in his book ("Since these articles are an attack on Singapore, it is ironic that the real Disneyland is in California—whose repressive penal code includes the death penalty") and Rem Koolhaas I checked the Ludlow source and it was a short footnote in the index (not the actual text). There is no mention of this article in the text of Ludlow's book (HaeB, thank you for noticing this). It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. The source is so weak that in my opinion this shouldn't even be added to the body. As for Rem Koolhaas, I wasn't able to find any mention of California or Florida from my searches, although he does offer a good critique about other aspects.
All of the previously explanations by other users also hold.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)