Talk:Tin Pei Ling

MP or not?

From the categorisation, she is listed as a MP...but the article itself doesn't state that. If she has been elected as a MP, then she would meet WP:POLITICIAN. If she hasn't, and her life achievements so far have been graduating school then I guess I don't understand why she should not be treated like any other NN candidate for political office. As contrast - President Obama had an article when he was a candidate for President, but he was a seated Senator at the time. Is there something I am missing? Syrthiss (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Try google. 137.54.14.123 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did. My adhd set in after the first two music video links. She doesn't appear to be a MP yet. Syrthiss (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

She is not an Mp yet she is in the running for parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.55.237.11 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

TR self-identifies as an internet newspaper

I just thought I would point that out since an editor alleged otherwise in the edit history. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

With no identification of editorial staff, this looks like a variety of forum or blog. It does not appear to be a reliable souirce. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a funny rationale. The fact that the sources are not named in Wikileaks doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source to be cited. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And neither is the student newspaper, Very Fine Commentary. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Curious -- many student newspapers in colleges such as say, The Cavalier Daily, would be identified as reliable sources. Is it because students are allowed to write-in articles? Remember, the issue identified by WP:RS is about editorial control. The press situation in Singapore is very different from the free press seen elsewhere in the developed world. TR and TOC are seen as respected sources of information that do not carry a pro-government bias, unlike the Straits Times. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have re-added the unreliable source tag, and recommend you request a review on WP:RSN. From that linked page, it says "Very Fine Commentary is written by and for Singapore's students at the JC level and beyond. It is entirely student-run, student-written and student-published. The journal is devoted to engagingly clear, and clearly engaging writing. We hope to present a collection of strong, sharp, sensitive ideas and commentary". Commentary implies an opinion piece, and it is unclear whether the writer has actually interfaced with Ms Tin or is merely mining other uncited works for information. Syrthiss (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree VFC is the weakest of the sources. However I do not agree that TR is unreliable. They form part of the "alternative media" that the government refers to widely in the state press. TR and TOC are seen as leaders of this alternative media. Btw, TR is indexed as a news source in Google News. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Being indexed on Google News is not evidence of reliability, many blogs and fora appear in GNews results. If you can show that temasekreview is regarded as a resiable source by other RS that would have merit. Plaese take these to WP:RSN if you wish further opinions. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See sources at Temasek Review. It has been cited by news sources outside of Singapore, even Romania. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

just like to point out that the site DOES self identify itself as a blog. Go to its home page, the title is "Temasek Review Emeritus- Singapire's leading social-politcal blog". Zhanzhao (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

the kate spade photo

Is it acceptable fair use? It is now widely posted and disseminated. Its style has been widely mocked such as in this instance. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

issues with tendentious editor

On top of the fact that editor refuses to undo the actual point of contention and will actually undo all the constructive edits in between, including edits by bots.

In any case, sourced statements about Tin Pei Ling's husband deserves to be mentioned as per WP:WELLKNOWN, since she is a public figure; in any case the statements are referred to by The New Paper, among other sources. The fact that the editor seems completely insistent on removing a relevant part of her life (marriages between public officials legitimately arouse fears of conflicts of interest) seems suspicious to me.

As for the Channel 5 interview, using it as a reference seems to be fair use. If not, we can simply cite the date and the time of the interview -- sources do not have to be online! -- but the statement will still be sourced, just an immediate link. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Don't see the point of linking husband profile to her page as he is not a public figure. I have seen other pages like George Yeo's spouse listed but never seen her corporate/roles/profile linked.

2. Removed the same link as it talked about marriage but link has nothing to do with marriage.

3. Removed a Temasek Review article stating she dumped her boyfriend for her husband because it's baseless as strictly speaking, there was no evidence. Taking photos together doesn't mean boyfriend. So don't see a point in inserting your "The New Paper" article of her refuting the claims.

4. Removed the youtube link as I was told there's copyrights involved.

5. Also related to 4., you seem to want to to include comments made by PM Lee about TPL. I don't see the point. So may I know each time a minister talks about TPL, are you going to write it in?

6. I've made those edits to shorten the article. It was too lengthy, too many quotes.

7. I don't see the point of including her treasurer post in 16th council when I've updated her role in 17th.

thanks for blocking me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a comment made by the revered and mighty PM Lee. How can that not justify an inclusion? Let's reach some sort of consensus however; her husband deserves to be mentioned. The husband is a public figure by the way, just not an elected one. The marriage must be mentioned as by the standards of any politician's article; if two office-holders are married this is a marriage that deserves to be mentioned. More information is generally, better, so long as it is sourced. Articles in general suffer from a lack of references, not an overabundance of them (there is never such a thing as too many references).

You can remove the youtube link, but please replace it with a print mention like template:cite episode. That way I can still cite the interview. The claims are widespread; so widespread that they appeared in the mainstream press to address the issue. The allegations are mentioned in a reliable source, and thus can be mentioned. We can mention that the source (and TPL) dismisses the allegations. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see the point of including her treasurer post in 16th council when I've updated her role in 17th." That's part of her career. That's public information. Also, I don't see why you must revert the bot edits as well. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should even be touching her page if you couldn't edit in a neutral tone. You use words like "ridicule Nicole Seah's comment". I noticed u use the word "ridicule" several times in MCYS page, in this page and another politician page. You just can't keep neutral.

I was fine with you including the spouse information, to show her connections (if any). I am not fine with your way and tone of editing. You are just very sarcastic and try hard to find articles to use as reference. When I browse through the article, it's just one very short mention. I seriously wonder if it's worth mentioning. You just want to include all sorts of trivia information that really isn't important. And I don't see how TPL facebook comment was related to the campaign either that you had to use the word "campaign-related". It was controversial, yes, but it's just your POV that it's campaign-related. And I have been trying to summarise it but yet you keep on insisting on expanding the article.

I still don't see the point of including her 16th council role. You seem to want to keep the reference poster for some reason. Her role in YPAP was updated with the wrong post for so long. And when I finally updated her current role, you still insist the old role to be around. I don't get what's your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get why you insist on throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, in references (such as all-encompassing articles) there will be a short mention, but this means this is a sourced statement. Her marriage is not trivia. If you disagree with mention of allegations (the allegations which are mentioned in a reliable source), delete it manually rather than reverting everything. If you disagree with my sectioning, revert that one. Or change the sectioning. See Wikipedia:Bold editing. My edits are imperfect, I ask you to improve upon them. What do you think is the correct sectioning? Do you see how the editing process works? Ideally your disputes are over content, not based on a vendetta with other editors. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm I am not sure if this should be in the lead paragraph, but the way it is currently phrased is definitely problematic. The original source used the term "open doors for her into politics" which is inherently neutral, but the current phrasing uses the term "backdoor" which is definitely negative. I think this is a good place where we can take a whole part od the sentence word for word so as not to add any slant to the original intent of the source. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to move it to a different part of the article, but it would involve mentioning the marriage twice. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed out repeatedly, I do not see the point of showing her previous position in YPAP "assistant treasurer for YoungPAP (YPAP) (a position since vacated) " when her current post is updated. Are you really trying to show her ex-position as treasurer , or are you just trying to include to show that the post has been vacated? Neither is it considered her "grassroots background".. By the way Elle, try going other MP pages and people don't edit their posts in the 13th,14th,15th,16th,17th ypap committee... It would be neverending. It makes sense to add in previous ministerial posts (if any), not roles in their party's committee (unless the role is big like being the chairperson).

Accusations of incompetence

Which is more POV:

• a "Political career" section with 80% POV negative coverage; or
• a "Political career" section with an "Accusations of incompetence" subsection (with sourced accusations of incompetence) to separate all the POV negative coverage?

- Yk³ talk ~ contrib 03:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there was "Criticism" subsection which can handle the content that would have appeared in the proposed accusation section, while still following how Wikipedia usually handles these information. As I said, the choice of wording is not neutral, though that may be my opinion and debates are welcome on this (Thats why we are in the talk page). "Criticism", especially since it is used in the sources, is a more objective choice in any case.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would argue that "accusations of incompetence" more accurately summarizes the section, but the more uniform "Criticism" implies an intent to keep the tone neutral. - 03:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)