Talk:LGBT culture in Singapore/Archive 1

message: :Editorial removed. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Future of Homosexuality in Singapore

message: Is this a copyvio? Rich Farmbrough 18:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suspect so. Naturally, it has NPOV problems too. I have just added the notice.--Huaiwei 16:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Natalinasmpf, your latest movement of the above page to "Homosexuality in Singapore" actually worsens its nuetrality. If PLU is not representative of the gay movement, it is even less representative of homosexuality in Singapore.--Huaiwei 23:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Both articles can exist on their own right.--Huaiwei 23:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Natalina. It works! Groyn88 01:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I would think that even if you want to have a page detailing the history of the PLU, I feel it is much better having it in the PLU's page. We cant have, for eg, Nature in Singapore or Nature conservation movement in Singapore basically all about the [[Nature Society {Singapore)]]'s history and their activities, despite them being one of the more visible and vocal groups. It borders on self advertisement if done so, a big no-no in wikiepedia.--Huaiwei 23:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Er...I am not quite sure what you meant...sory sory...--Huaiwei 07:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: That term was sometimes used, but usually only by left wingers. Academics who choose to take a more holistic stance tend to call Singapore a "authoritarian-capitalist" state, or being a "authoritarian democracy", and that is the stance I feel wikipedia should take. Singapore cannot be called a liberal democracy, but it is not a totallitarian state in every sence of that word either.--Huaiwei 07:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier Discussion

message: Can this be considered part of a broader, say, anti-authoritarian movement? What should it thus be called? -- Natalinasmpf 23:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That term was sometimes used, but usually only by left wingers. Academics who choose to take a more holistic stance tend to call Singapore a "authoritarian-capitalist" state, or being a "authoritarian democracy", and that is the stance I feel wikipedia should take. Singapore cannot be called a liberal democracy, but it is not a totallitarian state in every sence of that word either.--Huaiwei 07:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Broader umbrella movement?

message: * One of the articles that needs to have its issues addressed - See Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board for discussion. - Mailer Diablo 18:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues related to SG Articles

message: Saw a lot of updates on this so wanted to make sure it wasn't a vandal... nope! Just a very thorough author!
You may want to thumbnail so many images, though. It's a lot to load! Perhaps pick a representative image of each venue as well? Or, with all this info, maybe make article pages on the most popular and noteworthy?  Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 13:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are all the pictures free from copyright issues? For example, I dont think the screenshots are open source?--Huaiwei 07:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Ok Mr/s Groyn88, here's what I propose we do.
It's pretty obvious you're trying to add as much gay-related stuff into wikipedia. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, we (as in wikipedia) encourage this. However, there has to be a line somewhere regarding the encyclopedic value of the information. And we're not supposed to be adding stuff only for the sake of furthering a personal agenda. Let's examine the Table of Contents:
    * 1 Definition
    * 2 Statistical problems
          o 2.1 Available statistics
    * 3 Historical background
    * 4 Singapore gay culture
    * 5 Singapore gay personalities
          o 5.1 Historical
          o 5.2 Contemporary
                + 5.2.1 Activists
                + 5.2.2 Entrepreneurs
                + 5.2.3 Arts practitioners
                + 5.2.4 Academics
                + 5.2.5 Professionals
                + 5.2.6 Other prominent personalities
    * 6 Singapore gay venues
          o 6.1 Non-commercial/non-sexual venues
                + 6.1.1 Arts venues
          o 6.2 Bars, pubs and karaoke joints
                + 6.2.1 Lesbian bars
          o 6.3 Discos
          o 6.4 Saunas
          o 6.5 Outdoor venues
          o 6.6 Enclosed/Indoor public venues
    * 7 The future
How about we give this page a facelift, by removing some not-so-important stuff from here. 
Definition and Statistical problems, stay. Historical background, stay. Future at the very bottom is fine. Singapore gay culture, either relocate all those links to a See also at the bottom, or summarise all those articles under it and present a concise, clear paragraph on it. 
Singapore gay personalities, this one needs work. By my reckoning few of them are notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. Activists can stay, but not every single placard-carrier should be included. Pioneers and leaders of the movement only. Academics, but only those doing work directly related to gays should stay. Everyone else, out they go. But include media celebrities and those prominent enough to be famous for something other than being gay.
Singapore gay venues, ho-ho, needs big rework. Don't include every single make-out spot there is in Singapore. For Non-commercial/non-sexual venues, include only those that are notable enough for reasons beyond their association with gays. For all the rest, evaluate each according to their historical value, political value, social value, attendance, size, etc. And please, present them in an encylopedic manner. Don't say, "OK look at picture 5, see that red stool there? That's the place we gays can make out when one is significantly shorter than the other!" OK maybe I'm stretching thing a bit, but you know what I mean. Need to be concise, none of these locations deserve more than 2 sentences unless especially prominent. No telephone numbers please, nor addresses, nor names of owner. Also, do limit pictures to just those important venues. One per venue, please. Don't do 6.
Hmmkay? See any problems with that? Free free to 'bargain'. -Hmib 03:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr/s Groyn88, it's common courtesy to tell someone your response to their message, even if you don't like it. If you don't respond I shall commence spring cleaning on this page and I throw out all garbage when I do so. Hmmkay? -Hmib 23:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note that I may help to assist in the spring cleaning if possible. Top on my agenda is to remove all those pesky copyrighted images! :D--Huaiwei 05:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Now that I've got backing from [[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]]... hurhurhur

message: It doesn't take much to see that this article is obviously pro-homosexual and this is obviously to be expected if we keep the subject of the article in mind. However, certain sections of this article seem highly exggerated or written in a way that seems to emphasise dramatic value.
For example, the sub-section titled "The impromptu pride march" has ,in my opinion, little to offer in terms of actual facts etc. To begin with, pride marches are supposed to be events where homosexuals protest for their rights. In this event, by the author's own admission, passers-by taking photographs with the participants didn't even know the participants were homosexual. Also, the main purpose of the "march" was to find food, not to demonstrate for their rights.
Other than the abovementioned sub-section, certain achievements mentioned seem a bit over-exagerrated. For example, in the sub-section "Incongruent replies", the author notes that "the government's position was becoming untenable". In this instance, I seriously wonder how a 2 sentence reply to a single part of a question at a University forum represents how the govt's position was becoming untenable?
Lastly, the final section "Achievements of the Singapore gay community as a whole" at times, offers few statistics or examples to back up claims. 
Some of these are:
- More than one gay Cultural Medallion winner. 
- Many gay literary award winners. 
- Openly gay poets. 
- Award-winning/successful dancers, writers, playwrights, lawyers, academics, producers, actors, clergymen (one graduated recently from Harvard divinity as the convocation speaker), doctors, scientists, soldiers, heads of societies and foundations, CEOs, senior managers, bankers, and the list goes on. 
These points offer no actual facts or numerical figures to back claims. For example, how many is "more than one" Cultural Medallion winners? Two?
To end off, I hope the author and moderators could do something towards cleaning up this article. I haven't edited anything nor do I intend to edit anything. I don't think I should considering that I am (in the words of Mr Lee Kuan Yew) a "conservative, orthodox" Singaporean, myself and that obviously makes me very biased against homosexuals.
Cavaliere 14:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exaggeration & Elements of Drama

message: As you can see the page is not very presentable now but those pesky images and details and ESPECIALLY that Eileena guy has got to go. Mr/s Groyn88 has the chance now to specify which activists, personalities, and locations he considers notable. Otherwise... it's shreddin' time! Spring cleaning commences this weekend. :D --Miborovsky 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Page is cleaned up. Not much left, but that's because there wasn't much there in the first place. Groyn88 is given the pink triangle with a bar and shipped off to Auschwitz. --Miborovsky  22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha....I tot the trimming will be more aggresive than this. :D Come to think of it..is that paddychew composite open source? Dosent look like it.--Huaiwei 10:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's because the last edit I made somehow didn't make it through the database... now all the locations are gone. If they are notable then they will have to be proven so. Aggressive enough for you? --Miborovsky  02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As for the Paddy Chew collage, I think it would qualify under free use, since they're promotional shots. --Miborovsky  02:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something very wrong with the article name.  Sometimes it comes out as Singapore gay movements, sometimes as Homosexuality in Singapore.  Also, I take issue with the subject material being incongruent with the name.  In effect, this so-called "Singapore gay movement" is really the history of gay right group People Like Us.  So I suggest moving "Singapore gay movement" materials to People Like Us and "Homosexuality in Singapore", which is really what this article is all about. Mandel 19:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Turned up some smart aleck move the talk pages together, but not the articles.  No wonder. I've read through these very disjointed articles...these pages have SEVERE POV problems.  It basically takes the tone, not of a dispassionate observer (which ought to be the case), but a beleaguered apologist.  Major rewrite necessary. I'm barking, did anyone hear me? Mandel 19:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear ya. All thosw 20+ articles need to go to the trash can. So what do we do now? --Miborovsky  01:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And oh, please don't add thirtysomething publicity photos.  It's wasteful of resources, and Wikipedia is not a picture-book. Mandel 13:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we could give Groyn88 a few days to clean up his own mess, otherwise we'll do it for him... as we did this page. --Miborovsky  01:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: User:Groyn88 has POV solid standing and peerage here at wikipedia, try delete or edit his works is like asking all wikipedians to jump down Singapore high-rise buildings. I hate NPOVs stuffs when my hard work got deleted by arrogance of somelikePPLhere! re-write? Ask  Huaiwei or anyone here, guess none of you will! so what's my POV I'm just heterosexual and had nothing to-do with those who claimed to be the GayNorey196054 23:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Morally offensive views
What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?
We can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to prominent representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views.
unquoteNorey196054 23:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone wanna venture a guess at what the heck he's saying? --Miborovsky  00:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final ultimatum... muahaha

message: "The following article has been mildly edited from its website at as a temporary initiative to meet the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) requirements." Cleduc 13:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a dead link. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 19:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial content removed from article

message: Performance art has been unbanned as of last year.
Also... what is with the jumpy narration? The thing goes from 31 december 1993 to february 1994, then may 1993 and then back to december 1993? Then we find that the attempted expose by the New Paper 4 sections ago... took place in 1995? And after the registration saga of 1997, the next section takes place in 1996. And then jumps to december 1998... followed by... 1997. Can I say that this article fails encyclopedic standards massively?
*Sorry to point this out, but your edits fail English standards massively. You wrote about the "appeal" of section 377 instead of "repeal", which is the correct word. Please find out the meaning of "repeal" before you attempt to do any editing.Groyn88 14:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel freee to make improvements. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I realised that I was editing the Singapore gay equality movement article, but the discussion page seems to be merged with that for Homosexuality in Singapore, which I am now editing. Sorry.
Akikonomu 13:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Update for Singapore Gay Equality Movement

message: Pelangi pride centre website is down. However google webcache shows the objective of PPC is to: "promote sexual health among sexual minorities - and fight the spread of STI (Sexually Transmitted Infections), especially HIV infection (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), which causes AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)" - and not to inculcate pride in being gay. Later on, the website does say a strategy to address the spread of HIV/STD among minorities is to have a healthy understanding and pride in sexualities, but this is quite different from inculcating gay pride.
*How does a Singaporean LGBT individual have a "healthy pride" in his sexuality when local laws criminalise his relations and there is discrimination in housing, marriage and employment, without pride being actively inculcated? Pelangi Pride Centre has intentionally downplayed this mission statement, even though it is implicit, because it was a spinoff from AfA, which is supposed to be non-partisan.Groyn88 05:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pelangi Pride Centre

message: Re Indignation as 'government-approved', this is going way too far in propaganda writing. Everyone knows that the government has to approve of every public talk by awarding an entertainment license to the organisers. So in that sense, the indignation events were government-approved, just as much as the open forum to oppose Van Nguyen's hanging was "government-approved". Some intellectual honesty is essential for writing wiki entries. As for Indignation as Singapore's inaugural, historic pride month, only PLU billed it as such... I'm removing this claim until I see citations by the press to suggest they saw it as such (and not that they were reading PLU's press releases). Akikonomu 00:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Groyne88, please stop removing the 'disputed' tag every time you reply to criticisms and comments by other contributors Akikonomu 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IndigNation