Talk:2006 Singapore elitism controversy

message: Did her comments interfere with her education? Did she get a government scholarship to study at unversity?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.48.120 (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum. I've been scolded on that so a warning  here too.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is she now? 

message: Isn't it a blatant copyvio to have the whole post in the article? True, the blog was taken down, but the post is extant on other sites. There's no need to expose ourselves to unnecessary liability, is there? Johnleemk | Talk 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright concerns 

message: I think this article is missing one important aspect of the matter. The feeling of the public regarding the future of Singapore if such elitists are continually becoming the leaders of the country. Thanks. --unkx80 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing one important aspect of the matter 

message: I have just removed the following paragraph from the article:
The incident is unlikely to be an isolated case; In November 2005, there was a similiar controversy when a Primary 6 Gifted Education Programme (GEP) student wrote to Today asserting that non-GEP students (referred to as "mainstreamers") were immature and prefers segregation of classes "that lets us interact with people like us"."Why the elite envy?/What's behind elite envy in Singapore", Ken Kwek and Lydia Lim, The Straits Times, December 9 2006, p. 1, S10"Ideal learning and social environment", Michelle Qiu, Today Voices, November 21 2005 It was in response to a report published days earlier on ostracism that GEP students faced,"A gifted student? Sorry to hear that" Loh Chee Kong, Today, November 19 2005 in which commentators rebuked the letter as "a mentality that would please Adolf Hitler""For the elite or just elitist?", Kelly Koh Ben-Lin, Today Voices, November 22 2005 and "pitifully clueless""What's another word for clueless?", Edric Sng, Today, November 30 2005. The GEP has since been largely superseded in favour of the Integrated Programme, and Shu Min was an alumus of the former.
I have a few reasons for doing so: 
#The information contained in the removed paragraph is not directly related to the subject of the article (i.e. the Wee Shu Min elitism scandal); while it is (possibly) another case of elitism, it would be more appropriate for it to have its own article (or perhaps merged into the Gifted Education Programme article), with a "see also" link between the two.
#Inclusion of the paragraph in this article would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, as it draws a link between the two separate incidents when no such (sourced) link has been made ("The incident is unlikely to be an isolated case", "and Shu Min was an alumnus of the former").
Does anyone have any opinions on what to do with this paragraph? -ryand 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it as it is, for you, obviously, don't know what you're talking about.124.43.209.18 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is true to a certain extent that GEP students are ostracised, which is why IP came into effect. But it may be good, since IP is not necessarily the elite, what with 230 pointers entering RI and RGS. GEP was top 1% of the cohort, but IP is around 5-10%. This probably has nothing to do with the issue at hand though, which is mainly sensitivity and empathy. --219.74.78.167 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEP incident 

message: It was my understanding that there was some controversy over this issue in the media, especially focusing on the paper's failure to recognise the irony behind Wee's post, taking most of it at face value. In fact, this article sounds a bit biased to me, does anyone agree? Dudboi (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media backlash? 

message: Note that the tag is supposed to lead to a debate on the merits of deleting or keeping the article on the article's talk page. The tag is not supposed to be deleted without reason. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding removal of Proposal for Deletion Tag on [[Wee Shu Min elitism scandal‎]]