Talk:Lim Biow Chuan

message: Hi Ahnan, do note that blogs are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. I see the blog is a political blog, which makes its neutrality in doubt. If possible, please use news sources instead. 
With regards to the copyright violations, I referred to you taking the text word for word from the news sources. Despite what you think, under Wikipedia policy, taking chunks of text verbatim from news sources still constitutes copyright violation. With reference to Channelnewsasia, the site specifically states "Copyright © 2010 MediaCorp". However, you are allowed to reference the news site then paraphrase the content. Please get yourself more familiar with what is allowed and not allowed under WP:Copyright Violation policies. It would make one wonder if the rest of your edits are similarly in copyright violation, whether you are committing it on purpose or not.DanS76 (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately your "reporting" me for edit warring only exposes your own lack of what is or is not allowed under Wikipedia policy to the more senior editors. As per the edit warring instructions, Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption. Anyway Angus McLellan has also provided his own feedback on where you went wrong, so hopefully you learn from your mistake and don't re-commit the same mistake the next time. And by the way, I'm not 116.14.4.32. It does not do you justice to jump to conclusions and group anonymous IPs with log-ed in editors just because the lot of us rejected your edits for being not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Or next you'll be implying that I am Angus McLellan as well. DanS76 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Beware of WP:BLP and Copyright violation issues 

message: Especially in the context of the reference given, its a post by a user of the site, not a named journalist or someone who can be held accountable for statements made. If you feel this is in doubt, feel free to debate this issue under the WP:RS.DanS76 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous user at that.  There is nothing notable or reliable about the article.  It's a clear cut decision to delete it especially given that this is a BLP issue. SQGibbon (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. Just to get this out of the way, I've posted the question of Stomp's usability as a source to the WP:RS notice board [] so we can let the other editors judge it.DanS76 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine. I've removed the Stomp ref for now but it doesn't change the controversies. The Star article is quite specific relating to Lim under fire from the public. Dan, you are a Singaporean, I presumed. I appeal to your conscience. You know and I know that this incident has happened and it was a big thing. Why do you want to hide this info? Even if you are a supporter of Lim, don't you have a conscience? Don't you think it's morally right for people to know about his controversies? Why do u want to hide the info. I cannot understand... Ahnan (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not mention he came under fire from the public. You would do well to read the discussion above to find out what the exact issue is.DanS76 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: As DanS76 states, the Star article says absolutely nothing about Lim coming under fire.  This section about Lim is not notable.  It's a trivial incident in the life of a politician and there is nothing to indicate that it was in any way controversial.  Because its inclusion in the article implies that it is  controversial without any reliable source to back up that claim it must be removed for BLP reasons. On a separate note, I do actually respect the passion of your political beliefs, really (even if I do not understand anything about them not being from Singapore).  And I do sympathize with your desire to advance your beliefs for the good of the public.  However that's not what Wikipedia is here for.  Please read this essay. In short Wikipedia does not care about the Truth.  What it does care about are reliable sources, notability, and verifiability.  That is very different goal than what yours appears to be.  SQGibbon (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Looks like I need to further clarify. It does not mention WHO he came under fire from. As mentioned above, the way it is written at the moment, the criticism could have come from any one of his fellow politicians, opposition party members, anti-Jack Neo groups, womens rights groups, normal netizens etc etc, and if it was widespread criticism or just a minority. The source is unclear about all thesee points. If there's a more precise reference that answers all these, that'd be good for inclusion.DanS76 (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  My dear friend, you are a Singaporean, are you not? When Jack Neo's affair broke, don't tell me you know nothing about it? The whole Singapore was talking about it for 1 week! And you dare says you don't know who is angry with the MP for making such a callous statement? tsk tsk tsk... I wonder what benefits has PAP given you, to even stoop down to this level to hide the truth. Search your conscience, my friend, do you think you are doing justice to the public by hiding an obvious truth? * shake head *.... you are now even going into the semantics, criticising the newspaper article. If you want to nitpick, I can also nitpick all the other newspapers on anything. Anything written by any journalist, I can also find 1001 reasons to dismiss the articles they have written. Where do we stop? Why are you guys stooping so low? For Gibbon, I know I've stepped on his toes and he just want to get even by stalking me all the way from CHC article to here. He's a foreigner and I don't fault him for not knowing what's going on in Singapore. But you, a true blue Singaporean, trying to do this as well.... I feel very sad... very sad for Singapore... Ahnan (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dan, we are fellow Singaporeans. I do not wish to fight with you further on this as there is a big storm brewing over at the CHC article. I'm willing to compromise with you. I've already agreed to remove the STOMP reference and also the "under fire" statement. Do you agree then? Truce? Ahnan (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahnan, a serious question, without a reference to it being controversial why is Lim's statement notable?  He's a politician, surely he's been involved in political issues that are far more important and notable than this comment, right?  Let me try it this way, do you have any idea how many people said something similar when the story about Tiger Woods' affairs broke?  Tens of thousands and yet no one is being told that their statements were controversial.  Explain to me what's going on and why it should be included in Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You see, in order to understand the significance why this is notable, you've got to understand Singapore's politics and PAP party (the political party of strongman Lee Kuan Yew). The party has always portrayed itself as whiter than white (in fact, PAP members all wear white at national events in Singapore. White is their party color). Hence, even a smudge in Singapore's PAP, it's big news. Unfortunately, the main stream media, which is 100% controlled by the party would, as far as possible, try to portray PAP ministers and politicians in a good light all the time. So you hardly hear of any wrongdoings or booboos of PAP fellas. I know it's sad but that's the truth about Singapore. We are not truly a 100% democracy. Anyway, this is another topic altogether. Hope I've explained myself clearly here. Ahnan (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahnan, thanks for that.  Obviously I know very little about Singapore and your response is very helpful.  So now I'm kind of stuck here.  If I understand what you are saying, any Singaporean (is that the correct term?) who reads what we have in the article right now will automatically get why this is controversial even if the article doesn't say why it is so.  And not just controversial but so controversial as to practically define Lim in terms of that quote. Is that correct?  Likewise you should understand that from an American perspective that same text comes across as completely insignificant.  If president Obama had said the exact same thing about Tiger Woods as Lim did about Jack Neo no one would have cared as it's what everyone was thinking and what a lot of other people were saying.  When I read that section it strikes me as no more significant than what he had for breakfast this morning.  So now I'm stuck.  I'll take you at your word that his statement would be regarded as self-evidently controversial by any Singaporean reading this article but including it goes against everything I know about Wikipedia.  I'll think more on it but truthfully I don't know what the solution is. SQGibbon (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. For once we are in agreement here. HAHA! Just want to say that entry like this one, it will probably be Singaporeans who would be more interested to find out :) Ahnan (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, we're not in total agreement yet!  I still have problems with this.  But let me ask you this, three years from now will this controversy with Lim's statement be significant at all?  Is it a big deal now only because the Jack Neo incident is barely a month old?  I just spent some time searching the internet about the Jack Neo story and while there's a lot of information and anger from around the time it broke, my impression is that people now are a lot less upset about the whole thing than they were.  If my impression is true then wouldn't that reduce the significance of Lim's involvement?  Also, I understand that it's unlikely that anyone but a Singaporean would ever search out this article but you know as well as I do that we should not write Wikipedia articles for specific groups of people.  So how would you justify Lim's statement as being controversial to someone not from Singapore within the article itself?  If I read this article now (without knowing as much as I do), including the source material, I would be puzzled as to why it's in a section labelled "controversy".  Is it possible to use a different name for the section while keeping the exact same text? SQGibbon (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The younger generation of the world these days couldn't care less or wouldn't be upset with Hitler anyway. Does that mean that the holocaust is less significant these days? I'm really amazed at the way you think and reason things. Just curious, where did you graduate from? Ahnan (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Lim's statement while controversial at the time of the Jack Neo incident is no longer significant and will not be part of his legacy as a political figure, correct? SQGibbon (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Many of the faux pas by PAP politicians are remembered in Singapore for life. The situation of Singapore is very different that of US. In the US, the starting premise for politicians is that they are crooks in the first place (in other words, Americans do not believe in words of their politicians in the first place). Hence, whatever they say are taken lightly. Singapore is a different society. Up until now, the Singapore politicians positioned themselves as whiter than white and the best elites in the society, and hence the mandate to rule. Plus 50 years of media control (even up till now) that makes the citizens believe that they are "good". However, thanks to the Net, things are beginning to change in the Singapore's society. PAP has never lost an election in the last 40-50 years of history of Singapore. This coming election will be a test for them as the younger generation of Singaporeans are pretty net savvy. Ahnan (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stomp is not a Reliable Source

message: Just to weigh in, I think the wiki policy that is in contention here is undue weight on the coverage of the controversy. Right now it seems as if this politician is only known for the controversy, given the proportion of length spent on that section. I'm sure he's known for more than this controversy, but why is only the controversy getting so much "coverage" here? Am I right in saying that this is the crux of the debate here?Zhanzhao (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That I'm not too worried. It just a matter of time that PAP will be sending in their "Internet Brigade" (they have confirmed that they have a team of IB soldiers) to add more "good" stuff inside. I'm fine with it as long as there are "bad" stuff to balance to the view too. PAP politicians are only humans. Like all humans, they will have flaws too. Hence, they are not as white as what PAP's propaganda machine is touting their MPs to be... Ahnan (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise that you are practically admitting that you are just interested in adding "bad stuff" to this article here..... hence contravening WP:NPOV and opening yourself to an incident report.....Zhanzhao (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, the good thing about wiki letting multitude of editors editing an article is so as to tap the "expertise" of each individual writer. No one can claim to be 100% neutral. Everyone of us is brought up differently to see things differently in this world. It's like a half glass of water. Some people will forever see it as half full while others will see it as half empty. It takes the effort of everyone in order to make the article complete. Again, it's like the story of getting 7 blind men touching different parts of an elephant in order to describe the whole elephant. My expertise is on controversies. I never believe that a human is 100% perfect and hence, I tend to see the person shortcomings more than his good. Perhaps it's the way I'm being brought up. So, I feel that as long as there is a good source to back up a controversy, no matter how controversial it is, we should record it on wiki. Let the public draw their own conclusion. Perhaps the "bad stuff" is not the right word to use here. Think of me as the blind man who touches on the elephant's arse and who tends to describe the elephant from the back... Ahnan (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  While I understand that there are cultural differences at work I still have a difficult time believing that this incident is what is going to define his career as a politician.  That Ahnan's political adversaries are allegedly going to show up to provide balance does nothing to help the article now.  But whatever.  At least it has a reliable source.  My only suggestion at this point would be to rename the "controversy" section to something else since to anyone but Ahnan (and according to him other Singaporeans) there does not appear to be anything even the slightest bit controversial about Lim's comment. SQGibbon (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm fine. At least the word "controversy" is there :) Ahnan (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight on Controversy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lim Biow Chuan. 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/20120316152343/http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View%2C12074%2C to http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View%2C12074%2C
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316040952/http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2010%2F3%2F13%2Ffocus%2F5846684&sec=focus to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2010%2F3%2F13%2Ffocus%2F5846684&sec=focus
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following photograph of Lim Biow Chuan has been uploaded to Commons, and is pending OTRS verification:
* 
Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photograph at Commons