Talk:LGBT culture in Singapore/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Future of Homosexuality in Singapore

Editorial removed. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • N.B. The talk page is where controversial views are MEANT to be discussed. There is no Wikipedia rule which says that you cannot state what you feel is likely to unfold on the DISCUSSION page. This regulation only applies to the main article. If you do not agree with my scenario, kindly present your own case.

Incorrect. The talkpage is meant to discuss the article, not the subject. Anything that does not contribute to the article does not deserve to be on the talkpage. An example would be your Gaystradamus predictions. As for my own scenario, see below. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You're the one who's wrong. Read the section [1] which states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Moreover, the talkpage is meant for discussion regarding the subject of the article.
    • You're still wrong. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Your claims are not supported by any published references. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • These are the published references to support the claims in the "editorial" you deleted: [2], [3] and [4]. You must have conveniently neglected to read them. Stop deleting pertinent information. It's vandalism. I am restoring the deleted paragraphs.
    • These are about valproic acid and Kurzweil. Not about homosexuality in Singapore. Doesn't even remotely touch that. Your editorial has been removed because it's your own unsupported opinion and analysis which is not referenced appropriately. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, please note that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Their is no way of guranteeing ANYTHING, much less that gays will break off to form their own utopian society free from the vile influences of (insert opposite gender of said gay community). The gay movement is not a comet; we cannot be sure what will happen to be. Heck, we don't even know for sure what will happen to a comet. For all we know a gay terrorist will assasinate Dubya, prompting a huge backlash, resulting in the lynching of gays, and as Singapore is a 'running dog' of America, cause Führer Lee to throw them all into concentration camps. It's farfetched, but could happen! -Hmib 01:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earlier Discussion

Is this a copyvio? Rich Farmbrough 18:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suspect so. Naturally, it has NPOV problems too. I have just added the notice.--Huaiwei 16:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its as much a copyvio then someone effectively posting an advocacy article on wikipedia. It reads like a....documentary. An argumentative documentary. And the PLU does not represent the Singapore gay movement - in fact, I didn't know such a movement actually existed (by movement, something major like the civil rights movement)...Homosexuality in Singapore could apply. -- Natalinasmpf 23:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you kindly point out which sentence in particular advocates anything? I'd be glad to modify it or delete it if modification is not possible. A statement 'advocating' something would read, for eg., 'Filipina maids should be paid twice as much as Indonesian maids because they are more skillful at housework'. It is NOT advocacy to state: 'Homosex is illegal in Singapore but not illegal in ALL other developed countries. Thus, Singapore is an anomaly amongst developed countries in this respect.' Now, where is the advocacy in that? Even if you go further to state: 'The gay community feels that this is unfair', it would not be advocacy because the latter sentence is a statement of fact. It does not say: 'The Singapore government should decriminalise homosexuality', which may be construed by some as 'advocacy'.Groyn88 13:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but my concern is that people will contribute to a "Singapore gay movement" article when it could otherwise be in Homosexuality in Singapore.

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

Somebody help me in finalising it moving it back please, a simple reversal destroys the page history. -- Natalinasmpf 18:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Rich, Natalie and Huai Wei. I know all the activists at PLU and I am sure they would not mind a toned-down version, quasi-wholesale or otherwise, of PLU's history in Wikipedia. It serves as an important backup of the history of the ONLY organisation that has been vocal enough to stick its neck out for gay rights in Singapore. (The phrase 'one of the major organisations' does not do it justice.) This is to ensure that if there is a conservative backlash against gay rights in Singapore due to the perception that homosexuals are spreaders of AIDS, and gay websites are subsequently mandated to shut down, the information will be mirrored here in Wikipedia.

Natalina, your idea of changing the title to Homosexuality in Singapore is a terrible one. The category is just too wide. I have attempted to reverse the process although it appears clumsy at the moment. I intend to write a more encompassing article under Homosexuality in Singapore in the future.

User:Groyn88 14/4/05

-- Do you mind if if I transfer the PLU-specific stuff to an article for PLU? This would allow for the material to exist without giving the false impression PLU represents the entire gay movement in Singapore. -- Natalinasmpf 22:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS. You can sign your name with four tildes (~), and it automatically adds all the your linked name and date without all the hassle after you save.

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

The only trouble is, Huaiwei, that the information on the PLU website is contained in a frame and requires some effort to locate. In Wikipedia, the link immediately connects you to the relevant information, something that the casual reader may appreciate better. Groyn88 01:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

The article starts off ok, then degenerates into trivial event-listing. A major rewrite is necessary. And why can't this be merged with Homosexuality in Singapore? Mandel 16:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Broader umbrella movement?

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)


I think 'Singapore anti-authoritarian movement' would be a catchy new title to launch a network of linked articles. I haven't come across the phrase anywhere else yet.--Groyn88 01:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm just thinking of the the category because it would be an easy way to unify the common issues of both the movements for political freedom in Singapore (concerning Singapore Democratic Party for example) and moral freedom. That way further elaboration and analysis (thus valuable co-ordinated information) but reduced redundancy would result, rather than just loosely organised articles about the concerns of Singapore. I think the issue of nanny state government applies I Not Stupid article, too...since it concerns the whole issue and all, and thus could be (indirectly) interlinked with our issue at hand.(Speaking of which, yes, that article is a stub, if you don't mind working on it as well, could prove a valuable article to discuss more about Singapore's political system). -- Natalinasmpf 02:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to refer to Singapore as a totalitarian state? The dictionary.com definition is "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed" I noticed that in some other countries' descriptions, this word is used in single-party states where opposing parties are not able to form. In singapore, certainly political and (much) cultural expression is suppressed.. What is everyone's thoughts of including that word somewhere in the country description, or on a subordinate page? Xaqua 04:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

Issues related to SG Articles

about the name

which is better? Singapore gay movement or Singapore gay-rights movement? the former one just sounds a little bit broad... ==" --User:Yacht (talk) July 9, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

  • "Singapore gay movement" is less likely to rile ultraconservatives, who may infer that "gay rights" is some sinister agenda of the gay community to push for unreasonable freedoms over and above what most Singaporeans have. This can't be further from the truth. What the gay community wants are EQUAL rights as compared to straight Singaporeans, something that we are sorely lacking at the moment. "Singapore gay equality movement" would be a good alternative.Groyn88 07:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Wait, gays want as much rights as straights in SG do? There's no need to fight for that... straights have no rights either. -Hmib 07:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
(Sorry just couldn't resist :D)

Pictures

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)

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)
  • I've changed them all to "film-screenshot". I hope that does the trick.Groyn88 09:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

encyclopedic value of some info

We don't need to know where the gays in Singapore make out. 'Nuff said. -Hmib 18:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sez who? You wouldn't make the same remark if you were gay. Anyway, you seem to be hanging around these articles a lot, Hmib. Are you a closet fag? Straight people usually give these topics a miss.Groyn88 05:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Alright that does it. >:( Please avail yourself to read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically point 7,
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:
Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
This page is about homosexuality in Singapore, NOT a directory of where you can go to make out with other men in Singapore if you're a gay! That information is too trivial and non-encyclopedic to be included here.
(I also happen to be one of the greatest homophobes the world has every seen.) -Hmib 05:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

One man's trivia is another man's PhD thesis. As a matter of fact, sociologist PhD student Chris Tan of the University of Illinois is currently doing his thesis, part of which researches the very gay venues included in this article, and he finds the information here invaluable.165.21.154.117 09:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not wikipedia's job or function to include every nitty-gritty piece of information that can possibly be stored. Please review the link I provided, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A single person's commendation does not mean anything. In fact, Mr Chris Tan, being not a contributor of wikipedia (unless you're talking in 3rd-person), has nothing to do with this page. A spammer would find wikiyellowbook extremely useful, but it does not change the fact that a wikiyellowbook in wikipedia is unencyclopedic. -Hmib 16:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I've got to agree that the large list of venues and personalities doesn't seem to fit in this article. I came here from Homosexuality in Japan, thinking I'd find a lot more information about homosexuality in society, not clubs and artists. I'd say the guidebook to modern sg gay life might be better suited in a separate location. - BalthCat, 2005-08-11

You can find copious amounts of the information that you require in the following articles, User:BalthCat :

It's just that this article concentrates on personalities and venues. There's nothing wrong with that. Groyn88 06:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. With the title "Homosexuality in Singapore" the scope of the article should cover homosexuality as a theme, not clubs and venues, that content should instead be in a sub-article like those ones you just listed. Try "Singapore gay nightlife" or "Singapore gay venues" if you want to put it that way. But as I see it, "Homosexuality" is far to broad a term for all that stuff which is useless to anyone not currently in, or about to visit Singapore. (Sorry for the late reply) BalthCat (2005-10-31)
Well Mr (or Ms, whatever you want to be called) Groyn88, we're carrying out a discussion on whether the stuff you're adding are encyclopedic or not, so I guess you should stop adding so much stuff, come here and talk about it, right? Don't make me do anything drastic, Hmmkay? -Hmib 10:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been (intentionally?) ignoring these gay-themed articles for some time now, but I must say I concur with several points Hmib raised, thou not all. Foe example, specific venues where gays hang out and do whatever they want to do can be encyclopedic, provided it is presented in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. As a geographer, I have come across academic works on gay venues, and they are a hot topic in fact, often writern by straight students, btw. I believe the articles need to be re-writtern by anyone able to seperate personal agendas from fact, and present them in a non-advocacy manner, in contrast to what we have here.--Huaiwei 07:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've got backing from Huaiwei... hurhurhur

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)

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)
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)

Exaggeration & Elements of Drama

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)

  • "conservative, orthodox" people were very biased against giving African slaves their freedom, giving women the right to vote, approving of racially mixed marriages and allowing Chinese immigration into America and Australia. You should be ashamed of flaunting your bigotry.

Final ultimatum... muahaha

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)

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 Namechop.jpg 22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 Namechop.jpg 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
As for the Paddy Chew collage, I think it would qualify under free use, since they're promotional shots. --Miborovsky Namechop.jpg 02:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I hear ya. All thosw 20+ articles need to go to the trash can. So what do we do now? --Miborovsky Namechop.jpg 01:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Got to do some merging. Homophobia and discrimination, merge. Literature, art, theater, films, documentaries and TV portrayals merge into "Gay arts". Venues historical and current merged (and even so must see if they are appropriate in this encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a tourist guide or roadmap). Organizations, charity work can be merged. Conferences go into main "Homosexuality in Singapore" article. Terminology, the only article of any full encyclopedic value, can stay.

"Homosexuality in Singapore", a three-part article saying essentially 3 things of almost no note: 1) Definition. You can be married but gay. These things have nothing to do with homosexuality in Singapore but with Homosexuality itself. It should go there. Furthermore it's rude, inaccurate and bigoted. (One hardly thinks a gay person would be "happily" married to a heterosexual, unless one is bisexual) 2) That there's no census on how many percent of the population is gay, and then place the burden of blame on the penal code. No census mean no census, if the government wants to know they can always hold a blind census where people need not identify themselves by name. 3) "Statistics" section at least offer something of interest to the common reader, but can be easily merged into any article on Homosexuality in Singapore.

"Singapore gay movement" (at least the name) must be thoroughly revised. There's no "movement", it's a misleading title. Much of the article can be trimmed down. It's far too detailed. We don't need to know ad verbatim or novel-like details like "To their surprise, they found him extremely nervous and shaken. The officer, who showed his warrant card, explained that he had been given a coded message just hours before PLU’s Sunday forum, to make his way to the Substation and observe the proceedings. He was not briefed, and did not know what to expect" or "Mr. Lee paused for a moment, furrowed his brows and replied". Details that doesn't add to anything must go. Headers like "Rascals" and "The impromptu pride march" can't be more POV. If people like Groyn88 wants such a detailed story of PLU, they should post it on a website, and link it here. "Achievements of the Singapore gay community as a whole" is pointless agenda, what's it got to prove? That gay people are not stupid and can write? Nobody ever doubt that sexual orientation and the ability to write or do charity is independent, and to deal it here is a severe insult to people from both sides. W.H. Auden and Marcel Proust are gay, but so? Like anyone will base their literary achievements on their sexual orientation?

  • You are speaking from a Western context where the existence of a sizeable gay community is taken for granted. There are Singaporeans who even deny the existence of homosexuals locally. One school principal was quoted in the newpapers as saying that there were no gay students in his school. If these people are not made to realise that there are homosexuals under their very noses who are capable of being just as human as they are, their self-delusion will be propagated indefinitely, to the detriment of gay equality and human rights.Groyn88 14:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If people like Groyn88 thinks otherwise, he should have a proper discussion here. There're far too many of these gay articles lying around maintained by no one but him, and not to Wikipedia's credit. Sorry for being somewhat direct. Mandel 12:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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)
  • They are NOT publicity photos. Most of the sites containing many pictures are non-commercial anyway. The photos convey more visual information about various aspects of certain venue rather than just providing a one-dimensional take. Remember, a picture speaks a thousand words. It would replace reams of descriptive text and enable the reader to visualise the entire place without actually travelling there. In this way, it SAVES resources instead of wasting them. Why don't you put in as much effort as I have to illustrate your articles for the benefit of Wiki users instead of just venting your jealousy?Groyn88 14:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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 Namechop.jpg 01:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
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) just my own POV

quote:

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)

Anyone wanna venture a guess at what the heck he's saying? --Miborovsky Namechop.jpg 00:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

An external view

I looked at this article and I was shocked and stunned. Just a few weeks ago it looked like this, lots of useful information, some of it unencyclopedic in presentation and way too many photographs with questionable licenses. Now on 2 October it was a travesty, vandalized beyond belief by people who apparently thought they were making it better. But nearly all information useful to gay people in Singapore had been removed. I have reverted it to this version:

In the course of doing so, I have taken the liberty of removing all photographs except the one that had survived to October 2, the parts about bars, saunas etc (writing about which, especially on cruising venues, is an intriguing challenge!). --Tony SidawayTalk 02:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Riiight. Now I'm vandalising. Nice double standard. You disgust me. --Miborovsky Namechop.jpg 02:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the second through fourth paragraphs of the final section on the future are unencyclopedic and should be erased. Only the paragraph about AIDS really belongs here; the rest would be more appropriate in a magazine article. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I've been deleting and Groyn88 reverting. Tell it to your friend. --
-- Miborovsky U|T|C|E

Hello Tony, I've moved those paragraphs to the discussion page. I hope User:Miborovsky doesn't delete information in the discussion page, which he has done time and again.Groyn88 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're using it as a soapbox and this is unacceptable to wikipedia. You don't want to discuss it, you just want it to be there so that you're heard.
-- Miborovsky U|T|C|E 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

(For a further discussion on the future of homosexuality in Singapore, see: [5])

You just proved me right.
-- Miborovsky U|T|C|E 00:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Can User Groyn88 bother to discuss before he makes changes / revert? A number of questions are raised but not answered, the writer just take personal liberties at changing or adding anything he likes. Wikipedia is not your personal blog/website. Mandel 09:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he's just, you know, being bold! --Tony SidawayTalk 13:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Bad excuse. He's unwilling to cooperate or show any bit of trying to work with others. It crosses the "Be Bold" boundary when he keeps on "being bold" (which you seem to equate with reverts without discussion) after being told numerous times his edits were POV, unencyclopedic and non-notable.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I am just glad this article is slightly more presentable to outside viewers. :D--Huaiwei 12:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Editorial content removed from article

"The following article has been mildly edited from its website at [6]as a temporary initiative to meet the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) requirements." Cleduc 13:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a dead link.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 19:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Update for Singapore Gay Equality Movement

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)

The sub-section on Josef Ng needs to go, please consider shifting it to the history of homosexuals in Singapore instead. Your section header says PLU, but I don't see anything about PLU in the Josef Ng case.

  • I have put the Josef Ng case in its own section.Groyn88 14:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, the section on the CNA interview needs to go, also shift it to the history of homosexuals in Singapore. There's considerable overlap between the irrelevant sections and the Singapore gay history article. Pretty redundant, imo... Again, the section header says PLU, but PLU had no hand in the interview, the interview did not lead to any action by PLU.

  • In any encyclopaedia, it is inevitable that there is some overlap. That is not a huge problem as some sections describe the same event in more detail than others. The CNN (NOT "CNA" as you put it) interview DOES belong in the section because the person who asked Lee Kuan Yew the gay question was an early PLU member who was spurred on by PLU's push for equality.Groyn88 14:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, "Book published" appears to have nothing to do with PLU the organisation. It should be moved to the singapore gay history wiki.

  • The book "PLU: Sexual Minorities in Singapore" was the brainchild of Alex Au, founder of PLU, and his good friend Joseph Lo, also one of the early PLU members. As such, it DOES belong under the PLU section.Groyn88 14:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Au had an existing MITA licence in his name for a company newsletter, and had been publisher of this newsletter for a few years without hindrance. That company newsletter was not The Thing, and it's not as though he could transfer the license of that newsletter to The Thing. In fact, this is an irrelevant point, and the paragraph appears to be an attempt to highlight old grouses against the unfair, biased, homophobic government authorities.

Foster the Renaissance Spirit paragraph is pure editorialising. I can't find a way to make it NPOV, so it goes... Other people, aside from Groyn88 should feel free to work it, though.

Most commentaries highlighted the contradiction between professed desires to have an open, cosmopolitan society with a vibrant creative class and the archaic sex laws. Please find citations. Otherwise this is fiction.

  • Haven't you read Richard Florida's acclaimed, seminal work "Rise of the Creative Class" which highlights the correlation between vibrant, creative, economically thriving cities and the acceptance of homosexuals. Many Singaporean Cabinet Ministers have, which is one of the reasons why Goh Chok Tong initiated the liberalising moves towards gay employment in the civil service. Improve your general knowledge before attempting to do any editing.Groyn88 14:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The media blackout on fridae.com has nothing to do with PLU. It has been removed. Akikonomu 21:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel freee to make improvements. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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)

Updates for Homosexuality in Singapore

Definitions

There are 2 disclaimers that say weird definitions have been applied to the article. Unfortunately I do not see these 2 definitions used in the way they are described for the rest of the article. (Action: section removed)

Statistics

Available statistics: The usefulness of Fridae's statistics have been questioned on the SiGNeL list, 1. the survey was a self-reported poll, the facts were not verifiable. 2. the high proportion of high-income earners may be due to inaccurate self-reporting of the self-image boosterism quality. (Action: section removed)

  • Even if statistics were taken from an academic paper produced by NUS, how does one verify the facts? Just because someone questions your statistics, this does not mean that they are not valid. Your opinion that "the high proportion of high-income earners may be due to inaccurate self-reporting of the self-image boosterism quality" is totally your own opinion. If you dispute the statistics, kindly do your own study to prove them wrong instead of indiscriminately removing someone else's hard work.
  • In any case the aspect of Fridae's statistics which was questioned was the number of registered members on its website and NOT the results of its survey. This is due to the fact that Fridae does not have a mechanism for members to deregister themselves. Its survey results have got nothing to do with its registration process. Moreover, it doesn't take a survey or a genius to figure out that gays have a high disposable income, due to the fact that they have no children to support. The finding that many are high-income earners was even reported in a Channel U documentary on Singapore television: [7]. MY salary was over S$100,000/- per annum before I opted to work fewer days and hours to have more free time and I can assure you that I have one of the lowest (if not THE lowest) salaries amongst my peers.

Groyn88 05:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I suggest you look up available national demographics to find out the spread of income of gay men in other countries. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that disposable income is not the same as income earned. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that education levels are linked to income earned instead. Perhaps you mean to say gays tend to be highly educated, but again you have no citations to prove that.

The Urban Institute in Washington says Median earnings for gay men are $3,000 below the income of men with female partners, though the gap shrinks in states with workplace-protection laws and increases where none exist. Among less-educated men in the 11 states that protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation, earnings of partnered gay men come closer to earnings of men with female partners. Median earnings are here: http://www.urban.org/publications/900631.html

  • Please read the results of the above study carefully. It compares the earnings of partnered gay men with those of partnered heterosexual men. It says nothing about the incomes of single gay men as compared to single heterosexual men, which is the more relevant statistic as most gay men, in the absence of legal provisions for gay marriage, especially in Singapore, are single.Groyn88 18:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I refer to your earlier claim: Moreover, it doesn't take a survey or a genius to figure out that gays have a high disposable income, due to the fact that they have no children to support. But yet, as the US census shows, partnered gay men earn $3,000 below the income of men with female partners. 165.21.154.8 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/PUMS/nationalintro.htm gives a breakdown of income distribution of gay and lesbian persons from the US 2000 census. The average income of the gay person is $29,272. Since almost a third of this universe is out of the workforce, the actual average is $39,017. In the US, only 3% of gay persons earn the equivalent of your annual income. That would put you in the top 6 percentile of the gay population for earnings. Now. These are widely available statistics from census that were definitely conducted with scientific rigour. The Fridae figures - put alongside these census figures... just look incredible. Akikonomu

  • You are comparing apples with oranges. Fridae's study surveyed Singaporean gays and lesbians who are computer savvy, have Internet access and were motivated enough to register on its site. This already puts the survey population in question in the higher educational and income group, as compared to Singaporean gays in general, many of whom are not computer literate or are unable to afford a computer. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the percentages of LGBT people in Fridae's survey population which belong in higher income brackets are greater than those of the Singaporean gay population as a whole.Groyn88 17:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging that Fridae's study and statistics cannot be used to represent the Singaporean gay population as a whole. That point should be added in the article, perhaps? There's also a wealth of literature suggesting that online self-reported statistics on income, especially for signing up for websites, tend to be overreported.
The objections to Fridae's study are 2-fold: non-representativeness of subjects, and poor validity. Even for validated statistics compiled from online-savvy subjects, the premium of income levels compared to non-online savvy subjects isn't that high. Akikonomu 03:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What evidence have you got to support your claim that Fridae's study was "non-representative of subjects" and had "poor validity"? Fridae specifically stated that it polled its registered members and these are people who are computer-literate, with many having the spare cash to pay for Fridae's subscription fees. It never made any pretensions about surveying Singapore's gay population as a whole.Groyn88 17:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite easily done, Groyne. In case you can't remember or can't care enough to remember, claims have been made by members on the Signel list questioning the validity of its statistics. You should look up a statistics text to find out what a valid and representative instrument should look like...

Chiefly: 1. There was never a poll. The figures were obtained from people who signed up as subscribers for Fridae's website. 2. There is no profile removal policy for Fridae users - we simply don't know how many are repeat sign-ups. 3. Again, extensive literature exists to show that this type of online user sign-ups tend to generate unreliable figures on income. Akikonomu 09:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've already mentioned above that the objections made on SiGNeL were regarding the number of registered members on Fridae and not the validity of its study on the incomes of these members. Please quote the exact SiGNeL post/s which support your claim. Also give links to the "extensive literature" which exists to show that these "user sign-ups tend to generate unreliable figures on income".Groyn88 15:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pelangi Pride Centre

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)
    • If it had intentionally played down the mission, please give solid citations that this IS the stance of PPC. Otherwise, you are just offering your personal interpretation of how the LGBT individual is supposed to have a healthy understanding and pride in sexualities. Please note this is different from "healthy pride" - a phrase which I never used, nor did PPC, so why the quote marks - and also different from "inculculcating gay pride". Akikonomu 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't you speak to the activists involved in the setting up and running of PPC and ask them what the "Pride" in "Pelangi Pride Centre" stands for?Groyn88 18:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

IndigNation

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)

  • Your statement "Everyone knows that the government has to approve of every public talk by awarding an entertainment license to the organisers" is entirely false. In the first place, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong proclaimed in 2004 that henceforth, all public INDOOR talks would no longer require a police permit, not "an entertainment licence", as you put it. Please get your facts straight. Secondly if the Government did not approve of public indoor talks dealing with homosexuality, Prime Minister Lee could easily have said "all public indoor talks EXCEPT those dealing with sensitive national issues like homosexuality, race, religion and internal security". Public OUTDOOR talks still necessitate the application of a police licence as massive crowds may react unpredictably to "seditious" speech.
  • Singapore's first public gay poetry-reading session "Contra/Diction", being a performance, did require a Media Development Authority (MDA) permit. For this event, the MDA even helped to expedite the granting of the licence. If that is not "government approved", what is?Groyn88 04:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Government approved" in ordinary English implies "government-sanctioned", when what you really mean is PLU got permission to hold the event. The government certainly did not look favourably to the event, nor did it help to publicise it; the government merely permitted the PLU event to go on. Approved is too strong a word and gives the wrong impression of sanctioned; I merely suggest more precise terms be used.

  • To use your own words, "you are just offering your personal interpretation" of what the government intended. If the gay poetry reading session was not government-approved or sanctioned, the government could easily NOT have issued the permit. Remember, this was a performance and not an indoor talk, so prior approval was still mandatory. The MDA in fact went out of its way to EXPEDITE the granting of the permit. Thus, there is no basis for your repeated insistence that the "government merely permitted the PLU event to go on."
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)