Jump to content

Talk:2011 Singaporean general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by La goutte de pluie (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 6 August 2011 (→Heading for Balakrishnan section.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:SG

WikiProject iconPolitics Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The image File:Img157.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament Dissolved

As parliament has been dissolved on 19 April, the PAP candidates contesting in the elections are NOT the incumbent MPs as stated in the section titled "nomination day". The notes for the opposition candidates contesting in the elections are "TBA" for "To be announced", the elections have to be determine before it is announced. As such the notes for the contesting candidates, whether the ruling party or the opposition party be "TBD" for "To be determined" and not "Incumbent" or "TBA" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckysock94 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Of note: Chee Soon Juan is a bankrupt and is barred for standing for election. Why is he still listed as the SDP's leader in the infobox? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note: Rizan (talk · contribs) uploaded a bunch of leader headshots claiming own work. The pictures have clearly been taken off the net, so I've removed them all from the infobox and left an only warning. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answering your qn on Chee Soon Juan, he is still SDP's leader whether or not he is running for elections or not. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pending changes protection

I think this is the appropriate level of protection to use -- semi-protection might silence too many people at this point. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 06:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


swings

The swings are currently presented as though both the NSP and SPA received 13% of the vote last time. These leads to the table reading as a mathematical nonsense, with a very negative "summed" swing. Collectively the SDA received 13% last time. Either we show the collective swings for a combined NSP and SPA, or we indicate that the NSP and SPA did not contest the previous election separately and leave it at that.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There, I fixed it... and gave some more details.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree and would like to see your second suggestion followed. Also on the infobox, it's also a good idea to ditch the parties that got >5% of the vote.
And this article suffers from WP:FU problems too... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any Fair Use issues in the article. Care to elaborate? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The party logos shouldn't be here. That's why the political party templates exist. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The images are not licensed as fair use, but rather as non-copyrightable (legal grey area imo) because these particular logos are nothing more than geometric shapes, unlike, say the WP, which has a hammer in its logo. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't really geometric shapes. A guy who designed the PAP logo (circle with a lightning bold) probably spent months on designing it. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I drew the logos myself, and made sure there are variations from the original, although the tiny size of the logos may not allow this to be obvious. These diagrams were therefore released under open-source licenses and can be readily used in templates or in this article.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it works, doesn't it? Your works are derivative works; and if they are "variations" of the logos, then they are not the logos of the parties, which means they can't be used anywhere here as it will be a misrepresentation; and unless the parties release them into the public domain, they'd always be tied up with WP:FU regulations.
Unless of course the copyright law in Singapore says otherwise.
BTW, why is the WP color blue? I thought it was red? Can we use the hues shown on their logos? We'd have plenty of reds though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we contact the opposition parties? I just contacted the NSP from their website and the spokeswoman got to me within one minute of me contacting her. (I didn't ask for permission for the logos though -- just images of candidates, etc. they wanted to release.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are easier to get in this instance as they can change licenses. Unless SG law tells otherwise, logos are always copyrighted -- and the logos used here are not even the logos the parties used! So we can't invoke fair use for the original party logos, nor can we use the derived logos here since they're not the party logos. Imagine using "simplified and derived" FC Barcelona logos in La Liga seasonal articles!
Anyway, I'll not push for their removal anymore nor notify someone else of this monstrosity of violations, unless people push to use this tactic elsewhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seat Contested & Leader's seat?

I suppose the "Seat Contested" part is meant to be the number of seats contested? How come it ended up as the leader's seat? 175.139.197.62 (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leader's seat is/was the seat each leader held as of the dissolution of the 11th Parliament. The seat contested is the GRC or SMC they challenged individually, not how many seats they contested. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. But I disagree with one thing, that the leader's seat is/was the seat each leader held as of the dissolution of the 11th Parliament. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_election#Usage which clearly states for leaders_seat, it is "The seat the Leader represents", and it does not mention about anything regarding the last election, hence "The seat the Leader represents" should refer to The seat the Leader represents in the current election. Hence to put the leaders' seat prior to the election is wrong. 175.139.196.14 (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is taken to mean the seat the leader represented in Parliament, which at the dissolution of the 11th Parliament was different from their 12th Parliament status. In an article on a British election you'd find the same — the only difference here is that a leader moved out of his seat to contest elsewhere. Additionally, "Seat contested" is not the same as "seats contested". The latter is a figure; the former refers to an individual seat in Parliament (a constituency). I have added notes to the infobox to clarify this. I'll also change the name of the new variable to make it less confusing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearer now, but I still disagree. It would still confuse readers because it would look as if the leader contested the same seat as in the previous election, when in fact the leader have moved to another seat (which unfortunately, is located far down). I have left a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_election#leaders_seat and I hope this issue can be solved for once and for all. 175.139.196.14 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Wouldn't it be better to add a section regarding the criticism and/or the controversies of the elections? for example, a human rights NGO called Maruah, meaning dignity in Malay, has been monitoring the coverage of the elections in the local newspapers, which by the way are state controlled, has been observing that the coverage of the elections is rather pro ruling party. another example would be the violations of the terms of cooling off day by Tin Pei Ling, and the mystery surrounding the identity of this unknown "Denise He" who is said to have posted wrongly on her behalf? regardless of political viewpoints, i think that these matters should be included, to promote neutrality.Songjin (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cooling-Off Day controversy is already in the article. I'm not sure too much more can be said about it that will remain neutral (as is obvious, a majority of opinion on that incident is anti-TPL). As for other issues, if they are covered in reliable sources, of course they should be added. But otherwise not (e.g. The Online Citizen is not a reliable source on its own, but in support of other reliable sources it may be acceptable case-to-case). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the facts cause sympathy towards the opposition, representing these facts is not POV. It's just too bad the state press is actually, you know censored, and therefore saying that it is censored is not POV. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 12:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give me some time. In about the next few weeks when my workload eases, I will be writing up the "Issues" and "Controversies" sections, including charges of media bias which is a constant complain, although many would note that some of the mass media outlets do try to establish some form of balance nowadays. More could be done, thou.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid/Invalid votes

The vote tabulations only include votes certified as valid. In previous elections the number of invalid (spoiled) votes was somewhat high. It would be improve the article to include the invalid votes in the tabulated results for each GRC/SMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtuckerkellogg (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving sources

Does everyone else agree it would be a good idea to use webcitation.org to archive all the online references currently used in the article? There's no guarantee they will stay forever and it'd be preferable to have a link one can refer to than to have a dead link. If there are no objections, I (or anyone else) will start doing so tomorrow. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, spanner in the works. ST.com forbids archiving of their pages... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist remarks!

http://www.economist.com/node/18681827?story_id=18681827&fsrc=rss

Useful things to use when we are trying to find RS for issues that dominated the net but didn't make it to the state press in the form we wanted. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

idea

Wouldn't it be a good idea to redirect 2011 Singapore (or Singaporean) General Election to this article? I'm sure some people have tried typing that in and it would eliminate the useless step of going through the "search by results" page. 68.58.79.163 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PAP logo variation.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PAP logo variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SDP logo variation.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SDP logo variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PLDP variation.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PLDP variation.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independents on Tanjong Pagar GRC

If I am not wrong, the independents is Socialist Front (Singapore).
If so, then can you change it?

They did not declare as being from the Socialist Front; only one of the team was actually a party member. To incorrectly state so would be introducing original research. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


yawningbread?

is yawningbread.wordpress accepted as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a biography....and furthermore, yawningbread is a respected activist with his own Wikipedia page. His commentary is definitely mentionable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS applies, biography or otherwise. However, there is a little caveat in SPS that may indicate yawningbread might qualify as a reliable source: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Since this is not a BLP, and Alex Au's work in the Singapore political scene has been extensively covered by even the Straits Times and local press, he might barely scrape through. This is best discussed at WP:RSN, although blogs in general are not acceptable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taken with a pinch of salt. Though this article is not BLP, if the analysis affects a living person, BLP rules still apply. Also I am afraid of this setting a precident that will filter back to the other articles. RSN is the best way to go. Also unless the analysis is reprinted as an article in a reliable third party publication, it is best to specify the exact source so as not to confuse it as having originated from the publication, especially when only partial quotes are taken out of context which does not match the context it is used as a source. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main point from WP:SPS is that of peer-reviewed editorial discretion, which Alex Au is bound to have; blogs of most people are not acceptable, but blogs of experts are good candidates for sources. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by Strange Passerby, it might scrape through, but probably on a case to case basis, and RSN will go a long way to clearing it for use as a source here. Zhanzhao (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spillover from Balakrishnan article

Just a reminder that most of the points/changes/reverts debated here are already covered in the Vivian Balakrishnan article, don't make this a separate battleground. Also, try not to make it longer than how it was in the Balakrishnan article. Ita fairly ridiculous if it gets that way, considering it was not even a major issue of the election (well, he still won:P). Considering that its basically a duplicate of whatever is covered in the other article, it may even be feasible to just link it to the Balakrishnan article. Just a heads up that this is an option if the debate gets out of hand so that we can confine the whole debacle to within one article. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and suppress = dampen/reduce knowledge, conceal = hide. Conceal is a stronger word than suppress, and the meaning is slightly different in any case. So lets keep to the source wording. Can't recall, but if Balakrishnan phrased it differenlty, may be a good idea to use his own words, if its not too long, since it will be in quotes. But I digress, effort should be made to resolve in in the Balakrishnan article.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He used "suppress" and it started from the video so am reverting back the sub-heading. Zhanzhao, can you or another editor (Strange Passerby) make the appropriate edits to Vivian Balakrishnan's part for this page then? Not too sure on yawningbread's part. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this summarises the entire issue succinctly. To merely put the heading as "suppressing a video" makes the header unnecessarily unclear. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 22:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better unclear than add whats not in the original source. Also, avoid making headers unnecessarily long. IIRC when The Newpaper originally covered this, the headlines did not go into that much detail either, that was left to the article itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how it's not in the source. It's in the newspapers clear as day: "PAP: Will Wijeysingha pursue gay agenda? SDP: No, we will not". (Where "PAP" is really Balakrishnan, since he represented them.) This editorial fuss is getting a little ridiculous. It's better to put in everything relevant from the cited sources, unless you somehow think the headline violates WP:UNDUE -- and I don't think so at all! Some Balakrishnan sympathisers obviously want to downplay his electoral gaffe post-election. The entire controversy after all, was about the accusation of a gay agenda -- all the major newspapers had "gay agenda" in their headlines. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your source quotes "Then came revelations of a recently uploaded YouTube video entitled Gay Agenda, with the PAP team asking: What was the SDP position on the issue?". The previous source quotes Balakrishnan accusing SDP of suppressing a video. Pick one for the headline or another, not both. Granted they may be talking about the samething. But its not up to us to extrapolate. As wikipedia clearly states, "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" counts as OR. The biggest gripe I have is the need for such a long headline. Compare it to the other headlines here its as if it was trying to be more outstanding with its exceptional length, compared to the other sub-section/main section headings. Not to the extent of UNDUE, but the spirit of it (drawing unnecessary attention to a specific section) applies. Keep It Simple. And lets not let personal passions affect the functionality of Wikipedia here. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am really puzzled by your comment since it is clearly not synthesis, since the videos are the same. "Putting an end to speculation, a People's Action Party (PAP) team led by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has confirmed that a videotaped discussion flagged by this newspaper yesterday on "the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore", was indeed the one to which the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports had alluded, in his recent remarks about Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate Vincent Wijeysingha." [1] If Balakrishnan confirmed it himself, I do not see what is the problem. It's not synthesis to say: he accused the SDP of suppressing a video; he questioned the SDP over what this video meant in terms of advancing a gay agenda, and putting it into one sentence. It's not synthesis, it's grammar. We're allowed to do that.
Also the headline is long because I keep getting reverted, I am simply trying to satisfy the reverting party, to no avail, who seems to reject every amendment I make. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The role of the header is not to inform about everything at one glance, but to identify in as few words as possible what the content is about. That means knowing whats the most important in order to keep them as part of the headline. Balakrishnan's act of accusation, SDP, and the alleged suppression video I feel are the most important. The nature of the video is important as well, but not as much as the earlier points I raised IMHO. And even so, the header is so long that it is already almoat spilling into a second line If I recall correctly, the first NewPaper article did not even mention the gay agenda, which is why I feel it can be left to be elaborated in the article body.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the role is to identify the content as succinctly as possible; the most important thing seems to be the discussion surrounding the nature of the video, this is why is certain government-linked editors seem so intent on inserting it into the Wijeysingha's article. "Suppressing a video" is how Balakrishnan introduced the issue, but isn't necessarily how the issue should be described. The Watergate scandal, after all, was introduced to the world as a burglary, but that it is not how it is summarised by most people. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you look at the Watergate Scandal article, all the subheadings all were not more than 4 words. The closest to this would be the tape name headings, which was basically the names the tapes were referred to, which in this case we would have just called the the heading "Gay Agenda Video" as per the name in the original youtube link which caused this issue. That would solve my gripe about keeping the heading short... In any case, the current heading (A question) looks weird.... but I'll let the other editors take a whack at it for the moment. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Elle's edit is any better. Are you really picking a subheading for the issue or do you have a personal agenda once again (since you couldn't get what you want on Vivian Balakrishnan page? ) By the way, hope you remember that this is not a tabloid newspaper you are choosing a heading for.202.156.13.11 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heading for Balakrishnan section.

Can we settle this here rather than the constant reverts in the main article? Based on the SPIRIT of the 3 revert rule, multiple editors here would have been sanctioned, possibly me as well I suppose. Lets do this systematically. List all the proposed headings here and we will trash it out here via either voting (risky due to all the anon IPs unless we restrict to registered editors) or preferrably a rational diacussion. I will start the listing with the existing heading, those who feel otherwise do list out what you feel is better below it.

1) Balakrishnan accuses SDP of "suppressing video"
2) Balakrishnan accuses the SDP of a "gay agenda" (note problems identified below)
3)

For the time being can we please hold off reverting/changing the heading? Thanks for your cooperation. I also hope editors and admins who have been lurking or passively monitoring the state of affairs to give your feedback, appreciations in advance. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP has not returned to discussion, if it was not sufficiently clear above, I think "Balakrishnan accuses the SDP of a "gay agenda" is the most succinct.
Balakrishnan's entire purpose was clearly trying to associate SDP with a gay agenda. Is this really in question? "They have clarified they're not going to pursue the gay agenda; we'll leave it at that. I think the voters can judge for themselves, and I'll leave it at that." [2] SDP had to declare this themselves. Balakrishnan does not have to issue the words "I accuse the SDP of having a gay agenda" (especially since he is a politician, and this is not wise) for the affair to be succinctly summarised as so. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before, you would be introducing SYNTHESIS and OR if you just draw the points together yourself and combine them, even if you think it is really obvious. There is still the (unlikely) possibility that he heard of some potentially controversial video that the SDP was supposedly suppressing but he did not know the content, and when he found out, he challenged them on their intents. This could work witthout the accusation element. BLP dictates we not add these leaps in logic ourselves. But I will table your suggestion as part of the list
Really? I do believe our NPOV policy that we should regard the "unlikely" as fringe. Has any press source mentioned this "unlikely" possibility? If not, I do not think we should treat it seriously. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you reread how fringe actually works here. I am using the term "unlikely" as a matter of my personal opinion, not a belief held by the general populace or media coverage. Was there any poll done on this? If you are able to introduce some sources to that effect however, feel free to do so. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon rereading the source, it appears that it was Wijay that was questioned, the SDP was merely asked about their position on the matter. Which means (2) is technically wrong anyway.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
from ANI:
The source interpreted this as the entire party being accused. I believe it is correct to use this source's interpretation to support what is clearly obvious to everyone: Balakrishnan accused an SDP politician (and the party he represents) of having a gay agenda. That a press source made this interpretation should be sufficient evidence. The claim that Balakrishnan made his initial "suppressing remark" without consciously trying to insinuate that the SDP had a gay agenda, is a fringe claim and should not be factored in titling the summary. Plenty of press sources make this interpretation, and no press sources make any opposing interpretations.
Please avoid synthesis yourself. The idea that based "strictly on their original remarks" that it was possible, however unlikely, that Balakrishnan asked his "question" innocently is an original research statement unsupported by press sources. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Singaporean_general_election&oldid=443423761"