Talk:Lee Hsien Loong/Archive 1

Untitled

Anyone have details on his military career? -FZ 17:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.cabinet.gov.sg/pmlee.htm has a little bit: "He studied at the University of Cambridge on a President's Scholarship and a Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Scholarship. He graduated in 1974 with First Class Honours in Mathematics and a Diploma in Computer Science (with distinction). ... In 1979, he attended the Mid-Career Programme at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. ... He joined the Singapore Armed Forces in 1971. In 1984, he left the SAF as a Brigadier-General to enter politics." -- PFHLai 19:27, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Is he a real smart guy?

Well he DID graduate from Harvard and Cambridge. Not only that but he's a brigadier-general and had several years of experience in the cabinet.

I have always wondered how Mr. Lee became a Brigadier-General of the SAF despite his poor health. Is it because of his Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Scholarship? Or was his health good during his service in the SAF? Does anyone have information about this? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to the cancer? That was diagnosed in 1992, after he retired from active service in the military. --Vsion 21:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The Slapping Incident

I have removed instances of the slapping incident - an unverified rumor based purely on the book Governance in Singapore. Mandel 20:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. The slapping incident rumor is persistent enough to have been mentioned in Parliament, and Wikipedia should present both sides of the story. I've edited the article to fit. Jpatokal 03:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. It reads better now. At the very least it reads like an encyclopedia rather than a gossip column. But I think it's better to state the source of the rumor, ie. from the book Governance in Singapore. Mandel 09:50, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Never knew this news before... but sounds rather like gossip to me. Can't be too sure given the heavy censorship on news items and details here in Singapore. T.prasanth.mathew, Nov 10, 2005

It DOES sound like gossip. Does anyone have any credible reference? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So gossipy, that in fact, it was addressed in a speech on national television. Should be left in, but clarified of course. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's only gossip! It's just one of those political jokes Singaporeans like to put on their leaders. I just cannot believe how some people would ever perceive it to be true.

Then why didn't Goh Chok Tong outrightly deny it but claim that "he couldn't remember" the incident? I suppose his conscience pricks him to deny it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.1 (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

---

Worthington's book aims at explaining two different but possibly related things: the systems and processes of government in Singapore using the "core executive" approach and the degree to which Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong's father continued to be in effective control, despite his retirement as prime minister, during the period under review (1991-1998). The latter subject is of course far more speculative, especially in the Singaporean context. Reading the book makes abundantly clear that the quality of evidence for the former subject, especially given a highly qualified scope, is adequate. However, the latter subject, especially when read in isolation from the remainder of the book, relies heavily on unnamed sources and suggests different power relations than appear to have existed judging by the outcome of previous PM Goh's succession. He offers little validation for his observation that "competition for solutions to this issue (i.e. the difficulty of reforming Singapore politically and socially; ed.) revolve (sic) around five main factions that I have been able to identify". However, a book such as this could not have been written without a large number of interviews with members of the "core executive" who would certainly have sought clearance from their supervisors, so not only the incident itself, but also tha fact of its inclusion in what was clearly the most ambitious scholarly attempt by a foreigner to look into Singapore's system of governance and, more importantly, available from leading bookshops in Singapore continue to give food for thought. However, its is unlikely that more about this incident will transpire and all in all, there are more important and verifiable details about LHL worthy of inclusion, for instance a well-designed and -executed financial reform project. Hence it should go. [Sandgroper}---

I agree with most of the above. However, I heard about the incident long before Worthington's book was published. You can call it gossip, but a section of the population believe it and some have great respect for Dhanabalan and were disappointed that he left the Cabinet. What's the effect? Nobody knows until the next election is over. But Goh felt that it was important enough for him to try to dismiss the incident before Lee took over the rein. If you read closely at Goh's speech, he did not deny it categorically; instead he said he (Goh himself), Dhanabalan, and others, did not recall the incident. In other words, he was sending a strong message (especially to Dhanabalan's sympathizers): let bygones be bygones. --Vsion 06:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

To argue that this is not gossip because "a section of the population believe it" is a convenient way of passing groundless gossip as real incidence with unverifiable evidence. Till date, no known reliable source is known to substantiate that "section of the population." To say that Goh is trying to send a strong message of letting bygones be bygones is at best a speculative exercise. One could also easily argue that Goh dismissed the incident in that casual manner is because that is the most appropriate tone to deal with what he believes is a common local political joke, not something worthy to categorically deny it. That he would even raise the issue is related to the way Singapore leaders understand how even unfounded gossip can shape the mind of uncritical section of population, which might subsequently have negative impact for LHL's leadership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.92.103 (talk • contribs)

Well, if the PAP has abandoned its decades-old practice (and in fact, a standing party rule) of promptly and categorically denying rumours of wrongdoings and sueing for defamation, then this is the first time I hear about it. Reiterating a local joke about your successor in a national day rally? In a casual manner? C'mon! That was probably the most awkward moment for Goh Chok Tong that I've seen in his 14 years of prime minister; and the irony of it (and to his credit): it works! --Vsion 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe the article does not cover this, his wife Ho Ching or any of the other nepotism charges. I've restored them from a 2009 version, with a sprinkling of references; if you have any BLP concerns, raise 'em here. Jpatokal (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Moonmouth?

Why has this persistently found its way back into this article? I've never heard of this alleged nickname, and Google throws up no results either. I've not known anyone who does, either. So what is this, a esoteric in-joke or what? What one personally thinks does not make it a perceived nickname. Mandel 10:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Removed until the Rt. Hon. 210.187.136.251 explains himself. Jpatokal 12:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Improvements

This article is at the middle range now, maybe we should improve it by nominating it for Singapore Collaboration of the Fortnight or any other improvement drives. Meanwhile, do expand on the article. His contributions are more than that. --Terence Ong 06:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Of suicides and albinos

It's a well-known fact that Lee's eldest son is autistic and an albino, and the possible suicide of his wife has been mentioned by the BBC, so I stuck these back in there with a reference. Jpatokal 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

His son's medical condition has nothing to do with this article. As I understand, his son is living a fairly normal life. And what exactly does the BBC article said about his wife death? The added statement is misrepresenting the BBC article, and is a one-sided account based on rumour. --Vsion 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article clearly says that his first wife is said to have committed suicide.

To be more precise, it says: "His first wife is said to have committed suicide." Coming three weeks after giving birth, if it was suicide, the logical reason would be depression caused by having a disabled child. Jpatokal 10:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Albinism is caused by recessive genes. So for it to manifest, they must be present both in the mother and father, is it right? Any geneticist care to comment? Refer to: Albinism— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.12 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

China, Taiwan & Japan

The section on Sino-Sing ties say that "relations improved" but what about Lee's august 2004 visit to Taiwan, and his support of Japan's permanent seat on the UNSC? Those were huge problems for the bilateral relationship??? was this written by his press officer? Cheers, K.

change header to include china. but yes it need to be reworked, LHL relation with China has bee rocky at best and disasterous at worst, not to mention... Terrex... and LHL joke about China and his push to intervene in the matter of SCS. and how China choose to sideline Singapore and cooperate with Malaysia in a way that might be bad for Singapore Akinkhoo (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Lee's first wife

Why does the link to Wong Ming Yan redirect to the page on Lee Hsien Loong? They're hardly the same person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsjeytanje (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Wow. His first wife died of a heart attack when she was four years old. I guess it was too much strain from the honeymoon when she was only three. Nice job on the sidebar folks. I guess this important article should remain locked so that we can see how stupid it is as an example of Wikipedia amateurism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.175.206 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi there, do you have a better way in mind of putting that in perspective for the readers out there? Thanks and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

IP who posted that question mistakenly assumed tha the year shown was the in "birth-death" format when it is actually in "marriage commence-marriage end". Thought it was fairly obvious, unless he thought Ho Ching was underaged when she married/game birth, if he used the same assumption on the date beside the 2nd wife's name which is JUST BELOW the entry in the sidebar he found issues with. Wold suggest he pay attention to how information is beinpresented here before shooting his own foot and reveal further hints of "Wikipedia Amatuerism".

If this is the type of entries that are just waiting to be introduced into e main article, I would rather it stay locked. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Date format

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed, too long no activity, for query please refer to WP:MOSDATESGP for more details.

---

Hello Singaporeans, don't you use the date format (dd/mm/yyyy)?? -- Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We use any format we feel like. For abbreviated dates, that is the most common form, but written dates are in the usual English order of Month Day, Year. Jpatokal (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See here. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then everything's fine. -- Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Early Life

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed thread, the contributing editor was found to be the sockpuppet of a BANNED editor.

---

There are no sources cited for the "Early Life" section.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original synthesis and UNDUE

Some context here. Jpatokal has gone forum shopping, see NPOV noticeboard (link) and SGpedians' noticeboard (link), again misrepresenting my position. This is inappropriate behaviour. The proper place for a discussion on a BLP is the biographies of living persons noticeboard. As I have stated above, Jpatokal is attempting to misrepresent sources, synthesizing them and putting undue weight on an event that is not relevant for this biographical article at all. I have also stated policies, guidelines and precedents above. I will state my position once again, for the benefit of those new to the discussion.

• Salaries Cut, Singapore Leaders Are Still Well-Paid, Wallstreet Journal

Relevant parts:

"Singapore lawmakers voted on Wednesday to slash political leaders' salaries, as the ruling People's Action Party acts to temper public discontent over ministerial wages that even after the cuts rank among the world's highest."

"After a three-day debate, the city-state's Parliament—in which the PAP holds 81 of the 87 elected seats—accepted a new pay structure for political offices, with ministers' annual wages about 30% lower than in 2010. That includes a 28% cut for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, to 2.2 million Singapore dollars (US$1.7 million) and a 31% cut for a new minister, S$1.1 million."

Nowhere does the article mention that there was discontent over what Lee Hsien Loong was getting paid. The article indicates there is public discontent over "political leaders' salaries". To represent any "implication" or "connection" is ORIGINAL SYNTHESIS. Jpatokal represents his position thus:

"As of 2012, Lee has a salary of S$2.2 million (US$1.7 million) a year.^[1] Despite a 28% pay cut, described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages"^[2], Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world.^[3]"

^{[1] — http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/world/asia/singapore-slashes-officials-salaries.html
[2] — http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168620110589932.html
[3] — http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/uk-singapore-politics-idUSLNE81503N20120206}

This is WRONG on many counts. First of all, this is original synthesis because none of the articles referred to here say that the public discontent was directed towards Lee Hsien Loong. Public discontent was over ministerial wages, not Lee Hsien Loong's wages alone. Anything stated like what Jpatokal has suggested is ORIGINAL SYNTHESIS. This assertion is more suitable for an article on the current administration or the one on 2012 ministerial pay cuts. None of the other articles, from Google News, NYT or Reuters mention this in the context of Lee Hsien Loong himself. Secondly, it is WP:UNDUE and impertinent to have sections dedicated to "Salary" and "Controversies" on a biographical article, and then saying that they have been there since the past few years and so that in itself justifies filling them up with criticism built through original research. Thirdly, going by how enthusiastic Jpatokal is to have this original synthesis inserted in the article, would that justify creation of a separate section and putting in similar information on the articles of all the members of the Singapore cabinet? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong is Singaporean and your primary accusation seems to be WP:UNDUE, which is a part of NPOV, so both the SG noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard are clearly relevant places to ask for additional opinions. But I thank you for the suggestion and will solicit feedback at the BLP noticeboard as well.

Back to the topic at hand, may I suggest this version then, with new words in bold:

"As of 2012, Lee has a salary of S$2.2 million (US$1.7 million) a year.^[1] Despite a 28% pay cut, part of a Cabinet-wide reduction described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages"^[2], Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world.^[3]"

Does that address your first concern? Jpatokal (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not. This is because you are conflating public anger with ministerial wages, as public anger with LHL's salary alone. This is original synthesis. None of the sources state that public discontent was directed at Lee Hsien Loong alone. In fact, the majority view is that public anger was directed at ministerial wages. That is the difference. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In the new version, the phrase "a post-election response to public discontent" modifies the subject "Cabinet-wide reduction"; in other words, there is no implication that there is anger at LHL in particular. If you still find this unclear, can you suggest a better version?

Regarding your second concern, as stated earlier, I agree that the separate "Salary" section is unnecessary, and the proposal above is my suggestion for its replacement. I also agree that "Controversies" sections should be gotten rid of, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

And re: your third concern, LHL is mentioned by name and salary in all the sources, while the other Cabinet ministers are not. But this is LHL's article, so let's sort this out first and then see what, if anything, needs to be done to the rest. Jpatokal (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How is cabinet-wide reduction relevant to this article? Don't you get me? That belongs to the article on the current administration or the article on the 2012 ministerial wage cuts. It does not belong here, because it is not directly relevant for LHL's biography. So there are both WP:ORIGINALSYN and WP:UNDUE issues with what you are suggesting. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I really do not get you. I'm trying to answer an extremely simple question: why was Lee Hsien Loong's salary cut? The answer: there was "public discontent with ministerial wages", so the entire Cabinet had its salaries cut after the election. How else would you answer that question? Jpatokal (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What Nick is pointing out is that the question is "Why was the salary of the cabinit cut", since all the sources referenced the ministerial pay cut rather that just Lee's paycut. Lee was listed as an example of one of those affected, not the cause or sole affectee of the cut. Your direction seemingly leans towards Lee being a major deciding factor of the cut. At least thats how Nick and I are seeing this from you. Else why the hard push towards addressing explanations of the paycut in detail here rather than in the main article? Zhanzhao (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In perspective, the debate about ministerial wages predates LHL's ascendency in politics; by parity of your reasoning, it is just as important to offer a reason for the 2012 cut as it is to point out that that a large majority of the electorate had tacitly approved of the LHL's wages in the past. "Why was LHL's salary so high to begin with?" "Because the electorate has been approving of the increases since a couple of decades ago." The situation would be quite different if LHL has always been a prime mover for high wages and in the 2011 GE the electorate used this as a reason to give the PAP less votes. But I'm not sure that is the case and hence, the whole ministerial wages debate is more properly addressed in a separate article. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that, my friend, is WP:OR, as none of the sources claim anything like "a large majority of the electorate had tacitly approved of the LHL's wages in the past". Jpatokal (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(undent) So. I think you people are reading way, way too much into this. Once more, the question is why was Lee Hsien Loong's salary cut, and the intended causality of the answer is one-directional: "LHL's salary was cut because of X", not "X happened because LHL's salary was too high". Can any of you formulate an answer without any of these nefarious implications you keep accusing me of? Jpatokal (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm no, you do not get it, the question is not why the salary was cut, but you insist on going into a detailed "breakdown" in this article, when there is already a main article where you can go into detail. Perhaps THAT is the question you need to answer yourself first, You already have a few editors trying to reason with you here. Even after you tried to gather support by approaching other forums it has come to no avail. With the stubborness I am seeing, I feel that you are not exactly truly neutral to this issue/article anymore. This is not a personal attack, just a personal observation. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No. 02

I'd like to change this undisputed paragraph again - "Senior Wrangler" needs to be capitalised, and wordings from

"..together with a Diploma in Computer Science with distinction" to simply "..with a distinction in Computer Science". - this is because a Cambridge Diploma is the equivalent of its present-day Masters degree, as explained in the body, but few people will read it there and think its similar to some polytechnic Diploma. The wikilink will direct to the same page.Wrigleygum (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The capitalisation is fine by me. Actually, the education should be rephrased to condense it. For example, stuff like "Senior Wrangler" is something worth keeping. But I'm not sure if we need to go into detail about the subjects studied. Have a look at Barack Obama (the details of what he studied are never put in the lead). Would you be able to rephrase this sentence a bit? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well "..with a distinction in Computer Science" is shorter and he is also known to be the" only world leader who knows how to code" so it's appropriate. Right now the lead is still short. Maybe keep till later if we have other things to add and becomes too long? Obama's lead is 582 words. Lee with new edits is just 395.Wrigleygum (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Obama has plenty of sub-articles on various topics, so his lead is already compressed in a sense. The following initiatives probably did not get far, but still explained in the lead - "Obama has promoted domestic policies related to gun control in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and has called for greater inclusiveness for LGBT Americans, while his administration has filed briefs which urged the Supreme Court to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state level same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional." Singapore passed a lot of significant laws comparatively, so there's scope to include some important ones, like the changes to the mandatory death sentences.Wrigleygum (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not about wordiness of the lead. A concise lead is always preferred over a wordy lead. But more importantly, the lead must summarise content by assigning due weight. Your details about the education in the lead gives undue weight. That detail is reserved for the article, not the lead. And yes, the initiatives (gun control and LGBT rights) are explained because these issues dominated headlines in the US for months together.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No. 05

Formula One grand prix, the inaugural Youth Olympic Games and Gardens by the Bay followed, helping to double tourist arrivals a decade later.[1] None of these are "significant" achievements. If we actually look at sources beyond "Straits Times" (whose independence for the government has been questioned), I don't see any other sources mentioning these as achievements. Clearly, this is undue here and also rather trivial. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

These are the country's biggest tourism-related projects. To push this POV about ST objectivity, you'll need to cite research of instances. They have changed in the past decade, including criticising policies, just not officials directly. And few publications cover local news. So be fair.Wrigleygum (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are couple which shows that mainstream media is not totally independent of the government [1], [2]. And Straits Times has been widely cited as being a "government mouth piece" or "pro government" [3], [4], [5],[6]. On Wikipedia, we tend to use multiple sources for objectivity. So we don't discard Straits Times, but use it in the context of other sources. Yes, few "reliable" publications cover local news - there would be more if a free press was allowed, but that's not the case now. If Formula One grand prix, the inaugural Youth Olympic Games and Gardens by the Bay are defining aspects of Lee Hsien Loong's tenure, I'm pretty sure there would be other neutral sources talking about it when they review his tenure. But they don't seem to. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think much of the citations probably cover court cases and such. When it comes to law, opinions and reports can be nuanced, depending on the cases. Most people think Roy tripped himself for example, so once you make a mistake the lawyers will run with it. You can't say the courts or press is biased. As for tourism projects - they are non-controversial and collectively responsible for the tourist numbers. I will check tomorrow if I can find foreign cites. Not sure if UK Guardian is dependable if it does not use spell checkers -> "prime pinister".Wrigleygum (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No, multiple citations specifically say that the Straits Times is "pro government". We have used the same model in other articles: In cases of bias, we find third party sources and assign due weight. Btw, if UK Guardian is not reliable (for that typo), what would you say to this newspaper which published a whole paragraph of lorem ipsum ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No. 07

In 2010, Lee resolved the two-decades long dispute over Malayan Railways land on the island. Would you be able to find a third party - Non Singapore and Non Malaysian source which discusses this. This seems significant but needs a better way of expressing. Third party sources are helpful here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No. 12

He has led his party to victory in the 2006, 2011 and 2015 general elections. The most recent elections saw 69.9% popular vote for his ruling party and 78.6% in his own constituency. Over here The most recent elections saw 69.9% popular vote for his ruling party and 78.6% in his own constituency is pretty much coatrack and also recentism. The lead is supposed to summarise the most significant facts directly associated with the subject. Adding stuff about the ruling party is coatracking the lead. You can see this in other Featured articles that we don't mention trivial stuff like this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Lee is leading the party, country and the buck stops with him. The performance disproves previous political comments that the party may never increase its vote share again. We leave it for others to comment then.Wrigleygum (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll remark here that, as per WP:SOAPBOX etc, it is not for WP to 'disprove... previous political comments' or indeed to support them. Check out WP:NPOV. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I'll have to re-read some principles, but to suppress significant facts seems unreasonable - which is that citizenry supports him despite many perceived negatives. On recentism, this is an online encyclopaedia and items can be updated or vandalised on a whim, I recall the guideline of WP:recentism has also criticised by many.Wrigleygum (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

We are not suppressing facts, for NPOV we go by weight. This edit for example is not suppressing facts. We don't include it because it is a minor incident and we don't put undue weight on it. You can also see that other articles don't put trivia such as electoral performance in the lead.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not wish to be accused of fillibustering again and a waste of effort. Set this paragraph aside for neutral parties and agree the rest are fine. It's been a real dissapointment just on that score.Wrigleygum (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Great, we now have 11 more points to go. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to research on the rest tomorrow. This takes time, so I will prefer if you don't push. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Succession planning

The issue of leadership succession re-surfaced in public debate when Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong suggested, in December 2017, that the "fourth-generation" ministers should choose a leader from amongst them within the first six to nine months of 2018, and that this candidate should be formally designated as Deputy Prime Minister before the end of 2018. There was a brief discussion on social media by the two leaders in response to the appropriate timeline for the next leader to be chosen. Following on earlier statements that he would like to hand over to a successor after the next election, Lee has acknowledged that leadership succession is "a very serious matter".

On February 27, 2018, Lee stated that after Parliament reconvenes in May 2018 after a mid-term break, the Cabinet would be reshuffled to give the "fourth-generation" ministers more responsibilities and exposure, for example, through different portfolios. This was aimed towards equipping his successor with a more experienced team with the "collective wisdom" to lead Singapore into the future. This was also to allow Singaporeans to have a better "feel" of the newer leaders - not just as public figures, but of their ability to implement robust public policies.

At present, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat is widely considered to be the successor to Lee as Prime Minister.

References

Reflist added by me, all content above is by the IP--DreamLinker (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

CPF

On 15 May 2014, Singaporean activist and blogger Roy Ngerng, who had organised public protests over CPF policy issues, wrote an article in his blog, featuring a chart which drew parallels between the scandal involving the round-tripping of City Harvest Church funds and the movement of CPF funds. Lee, acting through his lawyer Davinder Singh, sued Ngerng for defamation in the High Court, stating that the comparison implies that he, as the Prime Minister and Chairman of GIC, was guilty of "criminal misappropriation of monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF". Ngerng was subsequently found liable by the High Court for defaming the Prime Minister. On December 17, he was ordered to pay S$150,000 in damages, S$112,000 of which was paid through crowd-funding efforts by Ngerng.

Protest over water price hike

On 20 February 2017, it was announced that the PAP government will be raising the price of water by 30%. The increments would be carried out on first of July in 2017 and 2018. Lee said that raising the price of water is "absolutely necessary" as it is a "scarce" resource and "not cheap to produce". According to a survey conducted by government feedback unit REACH, many Singaporeans disagree with water price hike. The Singaporean newspaper TODAY reported that several hot drinks stalls in Redhill and Jalan Berseh have raised prices since 1 July 2017 when the first phase of the water tariff hike kicked in. On 11 March 2017, more than 100 people gathered in the Speakers' Corner to protest against the hike in water prices calling the move "unjustified" as living costs are already too high in Singapore, which has been rated the world's most expensive city for three consecutive years, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

References

Reflist added by me, all content above is by the IP--DreamLinker (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Mention his interviews in Inside Job (film)

Mention his interviews in Inside Job (film) 99.181.146.221 (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• IMO, there's no real need for that, reason being that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (← click on the link to find out more and on how else you can help us to improve). Also, you might want to read up on WP:Biographies of living persons. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Remaking Singapore & citizenship changes

The most notable citizenship rule change generally attributed to Remaking Singapore & Lee is that children born to Singaporean women are now Sg citizens. I couldn't find any changes specific to spouses, male or otherwise, so I've removed that bit. Jpatokal (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

historical refs

i found them sort of interesting, i don't now why they're being removed cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.92.78 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, reversions like this require some justification. What is wrong with the content and references? The PAP's split into GCT and LHL factions and the succession dispute are open knowledge. Jpatokal (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jatopkal, the anon IP is likely to be La goutte de pluie who is not only reinserting content on this article but on others which were previously edited by La goutte. She has been editing other articles with a University of Virginia IP address – [7] – both previously edited by La goutte de pluie. If you look at your reversion carefully, you have reinserted the "Bad Democrat" category, along with some assertions presented as facts rather than opinion of the authors. La goutte de pluie has similarly wrecked havoc on numerous Singapore related articles all over – by inserting quotations out of context, representing opinion as facts (using multiple quotations marks ["]) in articles. I have reverted your edits, and if you dispute the edit, please continue discussion on the talk page as this is a biography article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I could care less who is editing, I care about the content. Here is the paragraph I am most interested in keeping, prithee kindly explain what's wrong with it: Jpatokal (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The transition was marked by internal factionalism within the PAP. Lee Hsien Loong had long term ambitions for the Prime Ministership, but many individuals within the Central Executive Committee resisted these ambitions because of Lee's perceived high-handedness and autonomy demonstrated in "personal relationships with other cabinet ministers" (Worthington). <ref name=rworthington>{{cite book|last=Worthington|first=Ross|title=Governance in Singapore|year=2002|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0700714742|url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/070071474X/?keywords=slapped&v=search-inside}}</ref> According to analysis by the Library of Congress in 1989, Lee's nearest rival for power was Goh Chok Tong, whose political allies within the party were a decade older than Lee and his allies. Lee was supported by bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence and army colleagues in the Singapore Armed Forces while Goh Chok Tong had more influence and was more respected in the Singapore Civil Service, the Cabinet and the government-linked corporations. <ref name=locsuccession>{{cite web|last=LePoer|first=Barbara|title=Key political issues - Succession|url=http://countrystudies.us/singapore/53.htm|work=Countrystudies|publisher=[[Library of Congress]]}}</ref>

Also, why was mention of the alleged slapping incident removed once again? Jpatokal (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You are probably familiar with WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Plain googling will reveal that Ross Worthington is not a reliable source—and at any rate the onus is on the includer to show proof of reliability. At the very least, corroboration is preferred. The LOC bit is fine as presented (above). Chensiyuan (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Ross Worthington appears to be employed at the World Bank's Asia Research Centre, where he specializes in public sector governance, and the book in question was published by a reputable publisher. What am I missing?

Also, the slapping "story" (in his words) is prominent enough to have been mentioned (and denied) by GCT in a public National Day speech on 17 August 2005. Jpatokal (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For the sort of claims that Worthington makes, they need to be supported by someone authoritative. He is by no means authoritative. At any rate, I have suggested an alternative: find corroborative sources, so that the claims unequivocally meet the requirements of WP:BLP. As for the slapping story, acknowledgement by GCT doesn't mean anything in and of itself. For some time, Obama had to constantly reject relentless claims that he's Muslim, non-American, homosexual and so on, but you don't see that mentioned in his FA here, even though those accusations were made by prominent people and he bothered to reject some of then. A BLP is not a catalogue of every notable incident; for something that borders on defamatory in the absence of compelling sources WP:BLP simply rejects it. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my French, but you just pulled that out of your ass. BLP or WP:V say nothing about requiring "authoritative" sources, only reliable sources, and you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that he is not a reliable source -- again, as far as I can tell, the book in question meets all the requirements of being a reliable source.

Second, to correct my own words, GCT does not deny the incident, he merely claims not to remember it. This in itself is a rather remarkable claim, as remarked on here by Michael Backman (egads, another reliable source!). And here's the Sydney Morning Herald: [8].

Third, the sentence in question does not say anything about physical assault, it merely mentions "Lee's perceived high-handedness and autonomy" and conflicts with others, specifically Dhanabalan, as stated here.

Last and least, the main Obama article does (obliquely) address claims that he is not a citizen and that he is a Muslim, and there are lengthy articles devoted to each: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. But Obama is the subject of dozens of articles, while LHL has only one. Jpatokal (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Chensiyuan, for your insightful comments on WP:BLP policy. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. JP has raised nothing new and has read WP:BLP and WP:V selectively, so there's nothing to rebut. A simple example suffices to prove the point: not only is it a poor play on semantics, I didn't pull "authoritative" out of nowhere -- see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I raised four separate points. To address the single one you deigned to address, the exact quotation from that guideline (not policy) is "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". What grounds do you have for claiming that that Dr. Worthington, an expert in public sector governance (do we agree on this?), is out of his depth when covering "Governance in Singapore"? And are you also claiming that Backman, Sydney Morning Herald and Rodan are not RS? Jpatokal (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are we actually debating on the suitability of including <unknown number>-handed account rumours/alleged events and OR/opinion pieces about same rumour/alleged event? At least the Obama conspiracy theories were clearly labeled as conspiracy theories, and had so much coverage that there was enough concrete content as its own article.... Zhanzhao (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Jpatokal, the answer is clear and simple: exceptional claims require exceptional sources and this is policy. The allegation of "internal factionalism" and "slapping incident" are exceptional claims which have not been covered by multiple mainstream sources. To answer the second issue which you raised, GCT also added something on the lines of Singaporeans having a creative imagination, to dispel the allegation as a rumour. In the end, this only exists as speculation and hence does not have any place on a BLP. Thirdly, the internal disputes and conflicts are again based on mere speculation and have not been reported by mainstream sources. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been described by some commentators as "arrogant", yet the same description has not found its way into their biographies. This is because we hold BLPs to a higher standard. Please remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, and not a tabloid. And I don't think we really need to respond to your fourth point. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Salary

Every commentary on the pay cut I've seen to date -- and I've sourced WSJ, NYT and AFP for starters -- has ascribed it to the PAP trying to placate the public after the last elections. If this half a sentence is "undue weight", then please provide the PAP's version as a counterpoint if you can. I just trawled through a whole slew of their speeches in Parliament and could not for the life of me find any reasoning for why they are actually cutting salaries, only a lot of justification for why they need to stay high. Jpatokal (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be relevant on an article on the Singapore cabinet. I am listing the links that you have cited in the article:

• Salaries Cut, Singapore Leaders Are Still Well-Paid

This source uses the word "public discontent" not anger.

• Singapore Slashes Officials’ Salaries

Alex Au refers to "public anger" in this report, not the journalist. This is Alex Au's opinion.

• Singapore PM says Obama earns less but has perks

Only this article makes a reference to "public anger" as a matter of fact.

It is inappropriate to represent opinions as facts, it is also wrong to place WP:UNDUE emphasis on an event which does not specifically target the subject of the article (the discontent is against ministerial pay, not Lee Hsien Loong alone). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The words "in a move widely interpreted" make it perfectly clear that this is a (widely held) opinion, so there is no misrepresentation. It is directly relevant to Lee, since the specific reaction to general anger was to cut his salary, and every one of the sources refers to Lee specifically. And the sentence has to be there to provide the context necessary to the reader: why are they cutting his salary? Jpatokal (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not relevant in the long scheme of things, which is what Wikipedia is all about. If you are so interested in writing news reports, why don't you start to blog about it? First of all, it is very impertinent to have a separate sections on "Salary" and "Controversies" on a biography. If you want to have a clear idea about how biographies are written take a look at Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, George W. Bush and Richard Nixon, all arguably controversial and widely-known figures, and yet, their biographies appear as they should. Your new insertions about "public anger" and "in a move widely interpreted" constitute hand-waving, place an undue weight on the incident and fail WP:ORIGINALSYN. The issue again is "ministerial pay cuts" in the wider context, not Lee Hsien Loong's salary. No one can stop you if you want to make a controversy out of everything. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In the long run, we're all dead and the sun will go supernova, destroying Wikipedia. But LHL's article has a Salary section for the very simple reason that he's the highest-paid politician in the world, and his salary became a major election issue last year.

And as for "original synthesis", are you serious?!? Here's the cited WSJ article:

Singapore lawmakers voted on Wednesday to slash political leaders' salaries, as the ruling People's Action Party acts to temper public discontent over ministerial wages that even after the cuts rank among the world's highest. ... The reductions, which also affect the president and all lawmakers, were proposed this month by a salary-review committee established last May, after a general election that the PAP won by a historically narrow margin. The salary issue, compounded by a widening gap between rich and poor, is seen as undercutting support for the party that has long held power in the tightly controlled island nation.

And here's the sentence in Wikipedia:

In January 2012, in a move widely interpreted as a response to public anger over income inequality in the wake of the 2011 general elections, Parliament set out a new pay structure for politicians.

So exactly what part of that is "original synthesis" not covered by the three sources? Jpatokal (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very convenient, have an entire section devoted to "salary" because the politician is highest-paid. Then why have a policy on WP:BLP in the first place? I will wait for other users to respond to this.

The phrase "widely interpreted as a response to public anger over income equality" is a synthesis of the sources and makes an evaluative claim in the article and constitutes original research. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you prefer "widely interpreted as an act to temper public discontent over ministerial wages"? We can quote it directly from the WSJ if you like. Jpatokal (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well? Jpatokal (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article on this issue 2012 Singaporean ministerial paycuts. This content should be in that article instead. Considering the ministerial pay cut issue affects each and every single minister, are we then to include this whole section in the articles of each and every minister? Yes, Lee may be the highest paid politician in the world, but creating a whole section to it is UNDUE. My suggestion - Can we just add a short line mention of his status as the highest paid minister at the very end of the lead and remove the whole dedicated salary section instead? Zhanzhao (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some sanity to this discussion, Zhanzhao. Opinions cannot be reported as facts, and they should always be attributed to the author. In this particular case, the opinion does not have enough weight or context for the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, do you mean to imply that my comments are insane? I suggest you retract that statement.

In any case, the Salary section has been there since 2007. This discussion is about whether his salary becoming an electoral issue in 2011 and contributing to the PAP's poor performance (by Singapore standards) belongs in the article. Jpatokal (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All that said, I do agree with Zhanzhao that the current section is unnecessarily verbose and would not object to it being pulled somewhere else in the article, such as the lead. Here's a condensed version:

As of 2012, Lee has a salary of S$2.2 million (US$1.7 million) a year. Despite a 28% pay cut, described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages", Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world.

So how? Jpatokal (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not have any idea about writing biographical articles. Find me an example of a good or high quality biographical article that incorporates direct quotations from news sources in the WP:LEAD. That was La goutte's style of writing articles - which was extremely disruptive, manipulative and in contravention to our core policies. This is an encyclopedia and you cannot substitute journalistic writing in the text by cherry picking quotations that suit your agenda. Whether it is the Wallstreet Journal or the Economist, there is no place in the article for a view that is either out of context or insignificant in the longer scheme of things. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So when I paraphrase it's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and when I quote directly it's disruptive, manipulative and in contravention to our core policies (!). Well then, would you like to demonstrate "journalistic writing" and enlighten me on how it should be done? And would you object to the sentence as violently if it's placed outside the lead? Jpatokal (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Quoting directly from opinion pieces into the lead is not advisable because it's WP:UNDUE. Somewhere else in the article is also UNDUE because this incident does not pertain to LHL specifically. Criticism of the administration is best included in the article on the administration, unless it is a major controversy (which this clearly is not) in which the subject played a significant role. And you can do a better job with the paraphrasing, just not on this article (BLP) as it's placing undue weight. See also WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:WELLKNOWN. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Every one of those articles makes a point of specifically covering Lee Hsien Loong, because he is the head of Cabinet, secretary-general of the PAP, the highest paid, and ultimately responsible for his own salary (and cuts thereof). Not a single other Cabinet minister is even mentioned. So, yes, there is obvious direct relevance to LHL.

I also don't understand where you see "criticism" or "controversy". Lee's salary and the pay cut are statements of fact. PAP's reduced vote share in 2011 and their setting up a ministerial pay review committee are also statements of fact. If anything, many commentators have construed the administration's willingness to cut its own salaries as a smart political move -- but this is an opinion. Jpatokal (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you see no difference between the article on the Cabinet of Singapore and LHL? I have already referred you to the articles on present and former American leaders, do you see coverage they received while being in office featuring prominently on their articles? Do you see any mention of Stephen Colbert's speech from the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in 2006? Such events and incidents may receive wide coverage in the media, but that does not warrant inclusion in biographical articles, as this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT. I invited you to share high-quality articles which even remotely resemble the article on LHL, but you haven't done that yet. Instead you have attempted to focus on pointless arguing when there are two users who think it is not reasonable to have out-of-context, and undue weasel words in a biography. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So. There are two ways text can be WP:UNDUE. The first is about unnecessarily representing minority viewpoints: "For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief." My contention is that view outlined in WSJ, NYT and AFP -- that the pay cuts were driven by the election -- is not only the clear majority viewpoint, but pretty much the only one. Do we agree on this much? If not, can you outline any opposing view and why it is, in fact, the majority view?

The second requirement of due coverage is to "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." My contention is that LHL's salary/paycut, having been a major electoral issue with an impact on the 2011 elections and extensively covered in reliable sources for a period of over a year, is not a "recent event", and that a single sentence referring to this does not constitute "undue weight" in a lengthy article. You, obviously, disagree. Have I stated our positions correctly?

Finally, which "weasel words", specifically, are you referring to? WP:WEASEL is about unattributed claims, but here the viewpoint is not only directly attributed, but quoted. Jpatokal (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Bump -- Nick, I would like to hear your opinion on this.

If its a major ELECTORIAL issue? Then wikilink it to either the elections article. Or the 2012 Salary cut article. That way the detail can still apear on wikipedia AND easily referenced from th subject articl here without pading this article too much. The infrastructure of wikipedia allows this. Why waste it? As a reference point, you can check out the current malaysian PM Najib's article. One thing you wont find significant mention there is linkage to the mongolian model Altantuyaa's murder case, even though the murder had been linked to the PM in many news sources. Because there is already a dedicated article about the murder, and all that detail can go there instead of Najib's article. I dont fully agree with that, but thats how wikipedia functions here. Compartmentalize, modularise, link and simplify and summarize where possible. Zhanzhao (talk)|

Could you please answer my questions, so I can understand what, exactly, we are disagreeing about? So are you objecting to the "minority viewpoint" bit of WP:UNDUE, or the "appropriate weight" bit?

Also, the text I propose above does link to the salary cut article. As far as Najib goes, there is a world of difference BLP-wise between stating that a pay cut was driven by political considerations, and literally accusing somebody of murder! Jpatokal (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not refering to BLP issues but the fact that the point only justified a one liner mention, and the elaborate details went to an article of its own. This rationale is true here as well, since there is already a dedicated article for the issue, we need not go into detail here. Is there any particular reason you feel that this content should be included here rather than the dedicated article? Since the sources you quoted all focused on the cut salaries of the party rather than just Lee himself. So either this extra content appears on the article of ALL ministers who were affected, or we stick with linking to the dedicated article. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In case I am not clear, my point of view is that it is fine to mention Lee's status as one of the highest paid leaders in the world. I just dont think it necessary to include the wherefores and whys to the nitty gritty of why there was a paycut, or the comparison to the US president's pay in this article since it is not directly related. Mentioning that he took a paycut after the elections is fine, without needing to go into detail here (just link it). Keeping the article direct and to the point is what we should be aiming for. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I'm trying to do, create a one-liner that covers the essentials and lets the reader follow up in the full article if they wish. Can you suggest your own version then? Jpatokal (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits reverted by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

On 2nd and 3rd June 2012, I added Category:Singaporean military leaders to the article as shown here: [9] and [10]. User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington reverted my edits twice (thrice now) without providing any explanation in the edit summaries, as evident in the following: [11], [12] and [13]. I contacted him on his talk page as seen here [14], but he refused to address my concerns directly, and instead asked me to discuss on the article's talk page, which is what I'm doing now. He then protected the article [15] on the grounds that I violated WP:BLP. I feel that the category should be added because Lee Hsien Loong was (or still is) a Brigadier-General in the Singapore Armed Forces, so he fits into the category. Other Singaporean ministers who were formerly top military leaders, such as George Yeo, Chan Chun Sing and Teo Chee Hean, are still placed in Category:Singaporean military leaders, so I don't see any reason why Lee Hsien Loong shouldn't. I feel that User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's actions are unwarranted, or at worst, a form of abuse of his admin privileges. 220.255.1.31 (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I was expecting your reply here, but instead I see you removing Category:Singaporean military leaders from the articles on George Yeo, Teo Chee Hean and Chan Chun Sing ([16], [17] and [18]). Your edit on the Chan Chun Sing article was reverted by User:Strange Passerby, and you replied to him at Talk:Chan Chun Sing, saying that you removed the category because Chan is no longer a military leader now. I assume this is the same reason for your edits on the other three articles (Lee, Yeo and Teo). IMHO your actions are, well, very inappropriate. You avoid addressing the problem directly here and instead proceed to apply the same controversial changes on other articles. Is this how WP:DR works? Never mind, I won't press any further. Now I understand why some people I know who edit Wikipedia decide to leave (WP:LOSE2WIN). 220.255.2.162 (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reason for photo being reverted.

As mentioned, the photo of every politician I've seen on Wikipedia so far has used photos of the subject in "dress attire". On top of that, the photo isn't under "Fair Use". The website which the photo was taken, apparently took it from a screen capture from the Channelnewsasia coverage, a copy of which is here [19]. From the 50sec mark onwards, we can see that the framing and camera angle is similar by comparing the character to the background, just that the Mediacorp and Channel News Asia logo has been cropped out. I've already tagged the photo for this issue. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Commentary about JBJ case.

There is an orbitary writeup about J. B. Jeyaretnam commenting on the fairness of his trial brought on by Lee Kuan Yew. The article was clear in that it questioned the fairness of that specific trial between JBJ and LKY. However, IP editor 123.254.108.209 is using the article as a blanket statement on the whole judiciary system, qualifying the inclusion of this content with, in his own words, "However, the impartiality of the Singaporean courts is in question...." which is clearly editorializing. A writeup about the case already exists in the respective J. B. Jeyaretnam and Lee Kuan Yew articles, but as Lee Hsien Loong was not even involved in the case mentioned, isn't trying to create a connection to push the entry in the Lee Hsien Loong article would also technically be classified as WP:SYNTH? Zhanzhao (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see your talk before writing my own. Thanks for kicking off the discussion. I disagree with the claims of editorializing and synthesis. To quote from the article "But the privy council judgment in Jeyaretnam's case still resounds, as a warning to other judges tempted to fail in their task of standing up for the subject against the state." It clearly includes reasoning beyond the LBJ case. Further commentary is in the next section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that this orbituary is akin to an opinion piece and not being reported as hard news? And you're screwed either way; because if the "warning still resounds", that means it worked and the courts are no longer biased. Or the artical was wrong about it being an effective warning, which raises the article's credibility. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is relevant to the past judgements of the courts of Singapore, discussed in the preceding text. The question of whether the courts are no longer biased is an interesting, but different, question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is WP:SYNTH, since you are trying to push a point and draw dots that's not specifically stated by the source in question. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Zhanzhao (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if one wrote about the current state of Singaporean courts and only drew inferences based on articles relating the past judgements, that would be WP:SYNTH . That's not our situation. In truth, I really can't understand your concern: there are so many other sources that could be used to replace this one. I've just chosen this one because it is so clean, unambiguous and easily available. It's claims are rather mild compared to sources like this one: http://www.freemalaysiakini2.com/?p=62232 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to move onto requesting a third opinion, which would be particularly useful from a source unfamiliar with Singapore and having a clean perspective on what is to be expected from an encyclopedia. Are you in agreement, Zhanzhao? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, my real concern is the inclusion of coverage that acts as a counterbalance to the preceding discussion about court judgements. I think there is a huge amount of middle ground between deleting the whole thing and having it as originally drafted. What are your thoughts on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is about relevance. As pointed repeatedly, the writer was commenting about the unfairness about the case involving the father, and makes no specific point about the son, which is required to avoid WP:SYNTH and BLP issues. I specifically quoted the revelant text from from WP:SYNTH. Guidelines and rules had been set for a reason. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the references, the only court case with a reference involved both the father and son, and therefore unfairness about a case involving the father relates directly to the cases under discussion. There's no WP:SYNTH. Since the discussion is about courts and cases, there is no BLP issue either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH was in effect because of the previous source used. The new source is better, as elaborated below. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bias of Singaporean courts (multiple reverts)

I've added some text relating to bias of the Singaporean courts. Those have been reverted by Zhanzhao

It's currently using Geoffrey Robertson's obituary of LBJ as a source. There are other useful sources out there that could be chained to give similar coverage.

What makes the current reference appealing is that a single source of high stature relates the very credible judgement of a court of appeal to the bias of the Singaporean courts. It relates to the Lee family, including Lee Hsien Loong specifically.

The previous version of the article gave an impression that court judgements had settled the matter of nepotism. That's incomplete. It's important to include the context that the only judgements have been made by Singaporean courts (despite similar claims being made worldwide) and that the integrity of those courts on these issues is widely questioned.

NB: I'm not prepared to edit using a login given the sensitivity of the topic, and the personal risks involved in perceived dissent.

The closest you could try to claim is that "It relates to the Lee Family, Lee Kuan Yew specifically". The article mentions does mention the son, but the commentary was very specifically about the case between JBJ and LKY. The fact that Lee Hsien Loong was not named in the article is a fairly clear indicator. In still trying to claim that its about LHL, you're just making it more obvious you're trying to draw connections with thin threads. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to draw connections. I'm trying to summarize a complicated state of affairs with a single, clean reference. I suspect the author's focus on a single case is because it is the only example we can find of a Singaporean judgment being appealed to and reviewed by a court outside Singapore. And the finding was scathing and without ambiguity and relates to "a series of misjudgments". If you can improve on the summary I've given, taking into account the points made above, that might be a better way to resolve this discussion than more "undo"s. Perhaps you'd like to bring in another credible source to say the judicial problems were contained to the JBJ cases, and not systemic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be a bit off on your wiki policies; the onus is on the claim maker (that's you) to prove his point. Especially where BLP is involved. The reference is a single, clean reference about a case between LKY and JBJ; unless you believe in such things as the "sins of the father" passing on to the next generation. It definitely belongs on the respective LKY and JBJ articles. But using an unrelated case to imply something about a peripherally named subject and extrapolating to fight for its inclusion here is pushing it. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please identify relevant policy or guidelines. The reference is an obituary that extends to discussing 40 years and a legacy -- it is not coverage of a specific case. I'm not making any inferences, merely adding a summary because of its relevance to the preceding discussion about defamation claims. The points made are about Singaporean courts and do not specifically relate to any living person.

My point is about relevance. As pointed repeatedly, the writer was commenting about the unfairness about the case involving the father, and makes no specific point about the son, which is required to avoid WP:SYNTH and BLP issues. If the writeup is irrelevant to the son, what is your purpose in insisting it be here? I specifically quoted the revelant text from from WP:SYNTH. Guidelines and rules had been set for a reason. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the problem is with the direct relevance of that section to the subject, why not just find an alternative source that makes the connection clear and specifically states that the courts are biased towards Lee Jr? The article is clearly about Lee Sr and JBJ, and does not mentions Lee Jr in the context about the court findings. To force a connection is not only synthesis and a big BLP issue, but threads on weasel wording/presentation. So it should be removed until a more direct and specific source can be found, rather than try to force an intepretation that isn't clear in the source. DanS76 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I will look for other references. That doesn't mean the current situation is resolved by deletion of content. The remaining structure of the article is (1) LSL is accused of nepotism (2) Court settlements relating to (1) have been in his favor. The deleted content is (3) Those have been restricted to a narrow component of courts whose integrity on such issues is in question. Contrary to Zhanzhou Point 3 doesn't need to have a source specifying LSL by name to be valid. The current structure of (3) is using a quality source discussing an appeal from the Singaporean courts that found "a series of misjudgments" and that is enough. It is relevant because the focus is on Singaporean courts making similar judgments. The structure of the article post-deletions is inadequate. We have a situation as if the Nixon article made the argument (1) Nixon was accused of involvement with Watergate (2) Nixon rejected the claims (3) end of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Following your logic, we will be opening the floodgates to allow edits that suggest the courts are biased in any similar court cases irregardless of the persons involved, since relevance isn't important anymore. Using a US president example example, its like using an article talking about George HW Bush's policies and forcefully extrapolating that his son followed the exact same policies; just because they are both US presidents called Bush from the same family who were also republicans from Texas. Like I said, I am only interested in relevance and avoiding WP:SYNTH, especially where BLP is involved. Using a reference that specifically refers to LHL in context will avoid any uncertainty, and you are good to go. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: You claim that you were talking about "a narrow component of courts whose integrity on such issues is in question". However, your edit "However, the impartiality of the Singaporean courts is in question" is a sweeping statement on the whole system. That and the issue with LHL/LKY shows you could possible have a misconception about how specific we need to be when making extraordinary claims here. Try to keep that in mind in future. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be really useful if you'd bring your insights to refine the text. Firming up the focus sounds like a good idea, and I'm glad you brought that out in the discussion. It would be great if your edits reflected that rather than simply deleting the whole contribution. BLP is not relevant because the discussion is about Singaporean courts which are not living, and not persons. If a third party or other process judges no BLP considerations apply, will you allow the edits, given your concern on that point? Can you be specific about what extraordinary claim you have in mind? Your interpretation of "narrow components of the courts" is not what was intended - by "narrow component", the focus is that the only courts have made such judgements are Singaporean. Those are a narrow component of the courts who could hear such claims. The relevant quote related to independent assessment of Singaporean courts, showing they have been flawed, and identifying the problem as systemic. The current article only gives the unqualified "courts", leaving out all these important aspects of the issues.

I've been through the references to court cases in the Controversies section and only one reference relates to a settlement or judgment, being http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/18/1 That reference states "apology was to Singapore's prime minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, the former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew", so a discussion over bias of the courts wrt Lee Kuan Yew IS sufficient to raise a question mark on the settlements under discussion.

Yes, but you were using specific quotes about a separate case that only LKY was involved in. Your new source is much better, as rather than being commentary from a case irrelevant to the subject, it is talking about the general view of the courts. For example, your previous edit was using an article about tigers in an article about lions (irrelevant), wheras now you are using an article about felines in an article about lions (acceptable since it is a subset). Zhanzhao (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain as to how the alleged 'bias of Singapore courts' is a relevant topic worth mentioning in this article. Editors should not forget that this is a biographical articles which should focus on the individual rather than peripheral topics. I'm quite busy at the moment so will not be able to participate extensively in the discussion, however, the new additions are clearly irrelevant for the article. Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor should, when less busy, review WP:BLPGROUP and note that WP:BLP is not relevant to the current discussion of bias by courts and judgements, only to statements about living persons. Such misuse of BLP is poor form, and dilutes the value of BLP considerations when they are relevant. The "irrelevant" assertion is unsupported, bizarre and disputed as the court bias is specifically related to the kinds of cases that were already in the article, and whose prior representation there was misleading and deceptive. 123.254.108.209 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: courts and judgements in a biographical article

Does BLP apply to independent reviews of courts and judgements that are mentioned within a biographical article? Content has been disputed / deleted on that basis, but the specific content relates to non-persons. 05:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can you provide some more specifics as well as examples of the proposed version and sources? Dreambeaver(talk) 22:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I imagine this is about the issue just discussed at some length above. It's a basic principle that BLP applies to all information in WP about identifiable living people, whether in articles or talk pages, regardless of what the articles are titled. However, the people in question here are public figures, and we go by the law of the US, not Singapore. But this article is about a particular individual; a general discussion about the fairness of court proceedings in Singapore that does not mention a case involving him would not be appropriate content, because its applicability to the situation would be that of Original Research or Synthesis ; one that was based on a case involving him, or used a case involving him as an illustration, would be very much appropriate if from a reliable publication in any country whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding his first National Day Rally

According to "2004" section, he had it on 12 August 2004. However, in "Taiwan" section, it states 28 August 2004 instead. Which one is correct? Please link to my user page when you reply. HYH.124 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Image

I recently inserted a recent, higher resolution image to the infobox, but User:Dave1185 appears to be so opposed to it that I have been reverted almost immediately upon adding it in favor of a lower resolution, slightly out of date photo. Apparently we are not supposed to "keep updating unless a major change occurs" now? Thoughts? – Connormah (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents... IMO, there's no need to keep updating the profile photo (though it maybe slightly out of date) unless indeed a notable change has occured, for example following an operation or major illness. Besides, though the newer image is of higher resolution than the older image, the older image has got better image contrast and depth, which should make it a better infobox image choice. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I can play around with contrast or send it to WP:GL if we need. Not sure though, the old image slightly gives me an outdated impression, I thought it was way older than it actually is... – Connormah (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oh my... the length you'd go to get that image you've uploaded to be use... make it so, if the colour contrast isn't anywhere near the older image, let's just focus on building the article page itself instead. Shall we? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dave. I have reverted to the newer version. Please feel free to change if you can find a newer, higher resolution image. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• OMG... it's headless Nick~! Cheers and best~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

May be just me, but I thought the previous photo was more "official" looking and neutral expressionwise. Unless the guy is often associated with this particular facial expression. (ie Jack Nicholson's article would do just fine with one of his infamouse crazy-looking expressions). Just my 2 cents though. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the neutral expression bit, but the previous image was too low resolution to be used as the main image for the subject. I am open to reverting back to the previous image, but let us get some more commentary before we do that. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Is LHL "Roman Catholic"?

"Roman Catholic" was added to his Religion on 13 Jun 2014. This is new information to me. Can anybody verify? Source? HopePrevails (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)HopePrevails

I have added a citation needed tag as I was not able to find any references to Lee's religion online, yet this does not seem so contentious as to be removed immediately. Laserlight (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference "Stop suing journalists: RSF tells Singapore leaders"

The reference link to the article 36 "Stop suing journalists: RSF tells Singapore leaders" was not found. May i suggest link from http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20100326-207016.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.243.7 (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-writting or Sourcing of Original Research Sentence

Per [20]:

This was (and remains) a controversial decision as previous Prime Ministers have stated that Casinos will not be established in Singapore.

This line is problematic for 2 issues.

• "...and remains...." should not be used because it would mean that we need to keep updating new sources everyday since it is ongoing if the line is left as is (which it shouldn't).
• And 2nd point is obvious, the line lacks a source, without a source, it reads like an opinion or original research. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Amos Yee controversy

Pacerier (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC): ❝

In the section "Lee Hsien Loong #Controversies" we should add the 2015 controversy regarding Amos Yee too. That can go below the 2014 controversy "Lee Hsien Loong #Defamation lawsuit: Roy Ngerng".

❞

Recent additions 1 August 2016

Please discuss changes here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
And instead of adding all that WP:COATRACK at once, could you propose the stuff here in points and we can put it in one by one? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No its not. This is a sourced edit. Onus on you to disprove the sources and items you do not agree with.Wrigleygum (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You still don't understand that you are wrong here? You boldly added content, I reverted it (See WP:BRD). The next step is to go to the talk and discuss and propose the changes. I'm politely asking you to self revert your last edit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uninvolved-editor analysis: the original addition was clearly in good faith, and the adder has justified it. The first removal likewise was in good faith and likewise was justified by that editor. As said, we're in WP:BRD territory. So we have a B, then an R. Just because one thinks content is not disproven (whatever that means) does not let one's edits exempt from being B--note again that the removal was explained, not a mere reflexive "require consensus for any change" type of action in the first removal. The dispute seems to be not that any one item itself is objectionable, but merely the overall amount. So now "D" would center on which one(s) are most valuable and in keeping with whatever content guidelines. But in the mean time, the stated problem is the overall undiscussed addition of the bunch (itself not a problem), so the overall removal of the bunch is the obvious going back to the pre-disputed state. Wrigleygum could help here by undoing their own edits on the recognition that the changes are disputed and now should get others' opinions for whatever changes are desired. DMacks (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

To Wrigleygum, I suggest you propose the addition here in points and we can go over them one by one. The problem with your edits is not only the addition but also the gushing tone and addition of coatrack content. If you propose your additions here, it is easier to edit, analyse, fix if necessary and then add it to the article. And there is no WP:DEADLINE to add the content - let's have a bit of patience :) Going forward, I hope you will discuss on the talk page first if any of your bold edit is reverted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine you can begin your comments below each point. Break it into sentences further if that's helpful.Wrigleygum (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I may be a bit slow, but I will be looking at it. We will go one by one as it is easier. I will also explain why certain stuff is considered coatracky for the lead. As a first step, have a look at Barack Obama and John McCain. Both of them are "featured article", the best written articles on Wikipedia and we generally follow them. The lead is 4 paragraphs long and is supposed to summarise the most important facts. It should also present both the positives and negatives of the person's career - but without commentary. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"I may be a bit slow, but I will be looking at it." - This is why I am sceptical. I note you are continuing to edit other articles whilst not commenting on the edits at hand. In any case, whatever you can suggest will be incremental - like every other article will evolve. So it's not a reason to stall and present something ideal. Meanwhile these are the sourced data that highlights Lee's record clearly from the sources, which are very specific about his first decade as Prime Minister. 4-5 paragraph are non issues. The last thing you mention is that its gushing - so start from there. Lemongirl942, if you are not willing to start commenting on these sourced edits, we can call at a neutral third party forum for comments.Wrigleygum (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no deadline. And you were previously warned not to "demand" stuff by AustralianRupert. The article is currently fine and your edits are not NPOV, added coatrack and seem to give undue weight to only positive statements about the subject. You need to be patient: we have often had discussions for months for adding a single sentence. We try to improve the encyclopaedia and that takes time. All of us are volunteers here. I am currently finding sources for a 10 year review of the subject's tenure as PM. I would advice you to be patient. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"not NPOV, added coatrack" - mention some or even 1-2. Everything you say is vague.. so months and nothing gets improved? Anything you can justify to be added as negatives will be incremental. Or is it your wish that no-one touch this article until you say so? I'm fine for AustralianRupert to comment.Wrigleygum (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, Wrigleygum, right now it would be worth bearing in mind what happened last time you were in a hurry and made demands...? Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

With respect to you too, unlike 'last time', we now have an indication by lemongirl that she 'might take months' to find sources to write the ideal article, it's like saying we want to get 'feature article' status on the first try. I think you will agree that that its unreasonable. I will abide by the rules, but everything we do here is incremental. Do have a look at the 3 main sources in my edits, they focus on PM Lee's first decade. Anything can be added or replaced by anyone if justified. The problem is there is nothing specific that's objected to - her personal POV in itself. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi if you have no objections, I would like to request some opinions from Teahouse or other forums you might suggest. Would that be fine?. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah Wrigleygum, I don't appreciate strawmanning you know. Anyway, here are some more sources: your sources were all from the Straits Times and we generally tend to use a diversity of sources. Here are some I found EIU, SCMP, IPS and the one you cited in the Straits Times. We go forward from here and these sources can give us a good indication of what and what not to include. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Strawmanning - Can you explain the context here, anything specific I wrote above? This is a start finally. I am not aware of two of the reports and will go through them. Meanwhile I suppose you have some points to hightlight and would appreciate if you can write a few below to begin with. I have no problems with negatives.Wrigleygum (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"we now have an indication by lemongirl that she 'might take months' to find sources to write the ideal article" This is strawmanning and I will appreciate if you don't do it again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; it suggests a certain lack of good faith, to say the least- not withstanding any implication of fillibustering... _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong putting together but these are her words leading to it:

• "We have often had discussions for months for adding a single sentence"
• "As a first step, have a look at Barack Obama and John McCain. Both of them are "featured article" ".

Wrigleygum (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Breaking the changes down into sentences, or smaller parts (perhaps paragraphs) on the talk page seems a good suggestion. You could then invite others (with a neutrally worded comment on relevant project talk pages) to provide opinions about the change in order to establish consensus. Beyond that, please remember that we are all volunteers here and most likely edit for enjoyment. No one is required to respond straight away. If Lemongirl chooses to edit another article, or do something else with her time, that is her choice. My advice is to try to get more editors involved in the discussion to broaden the discussion, it doesn't have to just be the two of you; indeed, three or four editors working together can help advance an article considerably. When you are done, potentially putting the article up for a peer review might also help to get more eyes on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed @AustralianRupert: point. No reason it couldn't be a GA- and I think WP:SINGAPORE is lacking on that front. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I had faith after she requested the following, but no comments followed:

• "I suggest you propose the addition here in points and we can go over them one by one"

Not sure if she intends to put up any comments after the numbering or leaving it for others.

@Lemongirl942 you posted 3 sources without comments, will you be posting those or just expecting me/others to do the work? Offhand I read the sources and they are largely positive, pre-dating last elections. My edits are mainly factual-stats so they are not negated. Should we put it to Teahouse or some other forum? Wrigleygum (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm sick of your snarky bad faith comments. I can tolerate stuff to a limit, but I am not a doormat. If you want to do it "quickly" try and gain consensus from established editors first - the onus lies on you. I see that you only have 184 edits till now (and you're clearly an WP:SPA if I look at your editing behaviour). It reinforces my view that you simply do not have enough experience to understand how stuff works in Wikipedia. It would be better if you actually go ahead and get some experience ( > 5000 edits in diverse namespaces including some dispute resolution) would help you understand more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't push you, but your vague claim of "Gushing" edits over 2 days without specifics like peacock words or sentences stopped the entire contribution being posted. Now you seem to be only concerned with the last paragraph, which if you had commented earlier could have been removed for the time being. Are you saying all the rest is fine at the moment.Wrigleygum (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You want it done sooner, get consensus from experienced editors. You added the entire content and it was NPOV. Your answers below indicate you are not aware of our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE, so for the benefit of the entire project, I strongly suggest you to get some experience. It is waste explaining policies to someone who is not putting any effort to listen. Anyway, since you have now said you are not going to push me any longer, I will agree to drop this matter. I tend to research each point extensively, so it takes time. Let's be patient please. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, is Teahouse request fine with you? I just want to see some progress even if it's just part of it, because everything we do is just incremental at a moment in time. I actually have some interesting points to add from the 3 articles but will wait for your comments if you are on to it.Wrigleygum (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments on article lead

1. Lee Hsien Loong (Chinese: ???; born 10 February 1952) is a Singaporean politician. He is the current and third Prime Minister of Singapore and has been in office since 2004. He is the eldest son of Singapore's first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew.
   1. No change
2. Lee graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge University as its Senior Wrangler (mathematics) in 1974. together with a Diploma in Computer Science with distinction. He later earned a Master of Public Administration at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. From 1974 to 1984, he served in the Singapore Armed Forces where he rose to the rank of Brigadier-General.
   1. Minor chanage
3. He won his first elections for Member of Parliament in 1984, representing the People's Action Party. Under second prime minister Goh Chok Tong, he has served as Minister for Trade and Industry, Minister for Finance and Deputy Prime Minister.
   1. No change
4. In 2004, Lee became the third prime minister. His government introduced the nation's first integrated resorts in 2005 after a year-long debate.
5. Formula One grand prix, the inaugural Youth Olympic Games and Gardens by the Bay followed, helping to double tourist arrivals a decade later.[1]
6. In response to the 2008 global financial crisis, Lee sought the President's approval to utilise past reserves for the first time, to guaranteed bank deposits and fund Job Credit wage subsidies for businesses to preserved jobs. Singapore's economy rebounded a year later with a high 15.2% growth rate.
7. In 2010, Lee resolved the two-decades long dispute over Malayan Railways land on the island.[2]
8. Since 2010, Lee's cabinet has strengthen citizens social safety net with major programs like ? Medishield Life universal healthcare with 'no claim limits' lifetime coverage; Pioneer Generation healthcare packages for the elderly; Workfare income supplement for lower-wage workers; Comcare fund for needy families; housing and childcare grants for all citizens.
9. Singapore's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, went down for the first time in 2013.[1]
10. With the global economy in downturn, Lee has focus on economic restructuring to raise productivity, including projects under the Smart Nation umbrella, SkillsFuture for life-long learning and 'industry transformation' budgets.
11. In his first decade as prime minister, the economy averaged 6.3% growth per year and nominal GDP reached US$55,183 (2014).[3]
12. He has led his party to victory in the 2006, 2011 and 2015 general elections. The most recent elections saw 69.9% popular vote for his ruling party and 78.6% in his own constituency.

Comments on disputed last sentence

@AustralianRupert, Lemongirl1942, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and DMacks:

After 2 days of discussion here, there is a truce as the sentence Lemongirl942 does not agree with will be set aside. I will be reposting the other edits shortly, but will still seek third party comments and consensus on the last sentence. Feel free to revert again if anyone feels otherwise, preferably individual sentences, and we can proceed to discuss again. Thanks. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I object to almost all of your edits because they violate NPOV. Don't bother putting it back in. I'm saying this explicitly since your POV pushing is becoming more obvious here. My recommendation is that you go edit Wikipedia, do some good contributions, learn how policies/guidelines work here and then come back and relook on your own edits. You will find it violates NPOV. Alternatively, you can write a more balanced version here and we can look. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I know the core policies well enough. There are 50 shades of NPOV and most of us are not at the centre 1%. Wrigleygum (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You 'know the core policies.' Good; check out the second of the Five Pillars. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I've read most of them before it's not Shakespeare. but I won't fall for an outburst again. This is a good time to remind ourselves not to be fixated on quoting the principles:

ONE pillar---"Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions"

- Wrigleygum (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as your suggested edits are community-friendly, then WP:IAR need not apply. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Foreign relations with China

I have reverted a recent addition. This seems to a trivial event falling under WP:NOTNEWS.In addition the edit is essentially a WP:OR from the sources (some of which are not reliable). Instead of edit warring on the article, can we please discuss this here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

i disagree, this is a fact, and more so it is a fact that has affected singapore reputation in china since it was reported by many media. as a singaporean who had to defend singapore's position, this is one of the issue that is always bought up against us. as such it entirely relevant. Akinkhoo (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Singapore's relation with China has deteriorated these few years. This may be minor, but certainly the impounded Terrex and not being part of China's Belt and Road initiative means something. You certainly can put it down in writing as long as it is properly referenced. If it is from mainstream media or PAP Mothership, better be sure to archive using Wayback machine before it disappears mysteriously somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Dawson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"The Honourable" honorific-prefix on Singapore members of Parliament, including but not limited to Lee Hsien Loong

As I have commented on the change-sets, "The Honourable" is also conferred to any current/former member of parliament unless the member has been charged a serious civil wrong or criminal offence while in office (e.g. prison, corruption) or if he or she was denounced by Parliament, or have passed away (e.g. Lee Kuan Yew).

Like in other Commonwealth parliamentary systems, it is used only in formal settings but it exists.

Evidence

See how the bioboxes of Australian (Turnbull, Joyce) and Sri Lankan MPs' (Ranil Wickremesinghe, Karu Jayasuriya) biographies are formatted on wikipedia itself, which also adopts the Westminster parliamentary system. This is also similar to MPs in other Commonwealth countries like Canada or the UK which use the "Right Honourable" honorific-prefix. Hong Kong SAR, former British territory, which has a similar system, also uses The Honourable for any normal living member of their Legislative Council. In the House, members refer to each other as "the honourable" member/friend while in discussion. See https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/media_centre/press_room/if/2013/infocus_February/infocus_20130204_02.html as an example.

When visiting foreign/Commonwealth countries in a formal setting, Singapore MPs are addressed with "The Honourable" prefix. Sources: (1) See cover page of https://www.imf.org/external/am/2006/speeches/pr04e.pdf; (2) When visiting the US - http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/Events/IHOF/IHOF_BIO_Lee.pdf

- Woodennature, 30 Apr 2017 20:45 UTC+8 / edited Woodennature (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed in much detail before.

See [21]. The last links provided in the discussion is the transcript of the actual Singapore parliament proceeding which explicitly says it is to be merely a form of politeness between members of parliament, and is not policy, nor is it official.

The problem with outside parties addressing with the term "Honourable" is that it relies in the formality of the addressor, not the real designation of the addresee. I.e. see [22] which is provided in The Honourable article - the designation is used in the US unilaterally when addressing ALL elected officials, not just those from the Commonwealth, so the USACAC example is moot.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quality discussion! However, I stand by the use of the honorific despite the fact that I agree that the USACAC example is moot because of the reasons you stared above. However, my point still stands and there is evidence to suggest that it is used, even if it is most likely used in a Commonwealth setting. So while it may not be a designation, The Honourable is still a valid honorific prefix. If anything, it is consistent with the formatting of the bio boxes of other Commonwealth MPs around the world, of which they may or may not have The Hon/The Rt Hon prefixed to them formally. Woodennature (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but local national rules take precedent. Case in point: Singapore is a member of the United Nations. Yet, even though there is a United Nations moratorium on the death penalty, Capital punishment in Singapore is still happening. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I also note that even in the reference you provided, it only lists ministers with portfolios, so its not a blanket designation。 Zhanzhao (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)