Talk:The Straits Times

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

Untitled[edit]

Fair Use Image[edit]

A low quality scan of a front page of this paper would qualify as Fair use, like in [File:USAT01092008.jpg]. Can anyone do this? Nicholas.tan (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled section Dec 2009[edit]

Removed

However, the latest AC Nielsen Net Ratings figures show that The Straits Times Interactive has attracted about five-million page views a month since May 2006, making it the top online daily in the country which is read by more than 4 per cent of the adult population monthly—predominantly professionals and executives.

from the page, since it is unsourced and unverified. GrimaH (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Straits Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

September 2016 edits[edit]

Hi User:Mohann Jasturba. I saw that you have done some extensive edits - some of them seem OK, some I'm not so sure. Per WP:BRD however, I have restored the article to the long term status quo version. I will look over your edits shortly and see what needs to be removed. I would also be glad if you discuss the issue here. On Wikipedia we work by WP:CONSENSUS after discussion. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl942, I have made bold changes as per Wikipedia policy. Didn't find anything contentious worth discussing. Each edit is independent and contains written explanation to summarise the changes. Feel free to undo any of them independently and discuss any contentious issues you find over here. Cheers! Mohann Jasturba (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, it's just that the amount of change was a lot. I will look at your changes do them step by them. Note that usually we also cite the applicable Wikipedia policies while doing changes as it is helpful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mohann Jasturba: If you don't mind, could you slow down a bit. Many of your concerns are valid, but some of your intermediate edits are creating problems. Usually we do stuff here step by step. Also in this edit, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really apply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Some of the information btw is also encyclopaedic. Although it is unsourced, much of it is verifiable. As such, the better solution is to add tags near the problematic areas. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl942, not sure why you are reverting all my edits. I took time and effort to painstakingly made changes one step at a time with explanation written in the summary. Would appreciate if you can read the changes and revert only where necessary instead of undoing everything. If you do not have the time to vet the changes, let others do so. I don't see the need to revert everything as if you own this page. WP:BRD policy that you quoted me and WP:ONLYREVERT says revert only where necessary. Mohann Jasturba (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately I had to revert it because you edits not only removed useful information, but also incorporated a WP:COPYVIO lead, originally added by the IP. For example the IP introduced COPYVIO material in this edit and your edits after that (like this) edited over that COPYVIO. There was no way to undo it selectively as the intermediate changes conflict (this is a technical limitation). COPYVIO is always supposed to be removed, so I went ahead and reverted.
Now for the rest of your edits, some of the reorganisation is unnecessary. A lot of the content which you are removing is also verifiable (though unsourced). Rather than removing, it is preferable to add a {{CN}} tag and explain the reason. It lets interested editors figure out sourcing.
For the see also section. I removed a couple of entries (diff) as it is not very relevant and we don't list a lot of articles in See Also. You can look at other state owned media article like Press TV and Global Times for examples.
About the "people associated" section, WP:NOTDIR doesn't apply as it is selective list, (unlike the editors section which was adding the exact listing from the website).
I have moved the personalities section below and reorganised a bit after looking at your previous edits.
I personally think it seems ok as of now. If you still feel more some changes should be done, could you please describe the changes here first and the reason along side it? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

TheRealSingapore not a reliable source[edit]

I just removed a writeup sourced from TheRealSingapore as it is a very questionable source. They don't really have a reputation for fact-checking [[1]][[2]][[3]], a lot of stuff is primarily user generated, and there seems to be practically no editorial oversight on what's allowed there (as seen from the faked news that makes its way there). And for this particular post, its "submitted" by an editor named "Farhan", the name of an infamous writer of questionable news. Yes it may not be the same "Farhan", but the fact that the editor chose to use that name should set alarm bells ringing.

Plus in the big picture of the article, it's really a trivial thing to get so much attention. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


I have added more sources. Also, it is not so difficult to do a fact check on the HardwareZone if you doubt its reliability. As this concerns the credibility of the mainstream media, we would have to rely on alternative sources. Further, the independence of Mothership that you quoted here is found wanting. https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/04/11/whos-fueling-the-mothership/ Jane Dawson (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the alternative sources. My main concern was about A.S.S. - its been the source for quite a number of hoaxes now. I will remove the A.S.S reference and leave the independeng.sg link. One thing to note about the A.S.S. link is also cos of the style of writing. Its clearly in a style of a "personal post"/"opinion" rather than a news piece. In comparison, the Independent.sg's style is more even. With reference to the "Mothership" reference, those I quoted reported an action by the SPF which can be found on its official facebook (will take some trawling) and in the case of the "new citizen", a first-person rebuttal bu the person whose picture was stolen. In this, WP's reliable source guidelines give allowance for it. Also regardless of allegations of bias, the main rule of thumb here is that sources must still meet wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. A.S.S. doesn't meet them, and there are more than enough alternative sources other than that questionable site or the mainstream media in question to refer to. (PS: Just did a quick check, even Mothership has also written on the Ashley Wu puzzle). I will be amending the writing to be more inline with the indepedent.sg article, as it also disregards the Hardwarezone angle, which is now unnecessary unnecessary. That point would somewhat deligitimizes it - its like giving credibility to an article by quoting reddit or 4chan). Zhanzhao (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Straits Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)