Talk:2006 Singapore elitism controversy

Where is she now?

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)

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)

In case anyone wants to update with her career: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shuminwee/

Insufficient context

What on earth is a heartlander? --Adamrush 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

heartlanders are commoners, or the non so called elite people. -- 18:41, 23 November 2006 219.74.72.117

They are the socioœconomic élite. Please, even on talk pages, stop using that weasely little phrase — “so-called”. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Put that in the article in some form... AnonMoos 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "heartlanders" is not standard English and certainly not understood by the vast majority of native speakers of English. Is this a Singaporean phrase? Does it refer to a social phenomenon unique to Singapore? Clarification in the article would be appreciated. -- 70.59.116.19 01:14, 24 November 2006

• I know one thing for sure - that's definitely not Singlish! ;) - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We all understand what the term heartlander refers to. If you don't, too bad. --219.74.78.167 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, I don't understand it either, and I doubt "we all" do. I don't know anything from Singapore and "heartlander" means nothing to me without an additional explanation... 201.216.245.25 (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Disregard that, who the hell is Derek Wee? // Gargaj (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

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)

Missing one important aspect of the matter

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)

• I might have missed that out from my list of sources, or never came through it. I'll see if there's any mention and add if there is any. - Mailer Diablo 19:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, that point is quite WP:POV, and will only be included if reliable sources are found. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 04:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• The media did not really question the feeling of the general public, however, they did report that it outrage many local netizens, so the only proof comes from online forums and blogs, but how reliable are those? gd4u 15:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

GEP incident

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". It was in response to a report published days earlier on ostracism that GEP students faced, in which commentators rebuked the letter as "a mentality that would please Adolf Hitler" and "pitifully clueless". 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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

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)

References

Media backlash?

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)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.139.47 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding removal of Proposal for Deletion Tag on Wee Shu Min elitism scandal‎

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)