Talk:Lee Hsien Loong/Archive 2

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

Proposal to change subheadings under "Prime Minister" heading[edit]

Current headings in chronological order mention mainly on general elections instead of his contributions. After reading Obama's wiki page, I think contributions in terms of domestic policies such as healthcare, economic and social policies and foreign policies would be more relevant. Those on general elections already have their own wiki page. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lee Hsien Loong. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total BLACKOUT of Oxley house dispute[edit]

It seems that ‪KATMAKROFAN is insisting that the issue be totally removed from LHL page without substantiating on where was article contravening NPOV. KATMAKROFAN‬ needs to remember this issue is a national issue that affects him and the nation and is widely reported by international news outlet and text written in wiki about this issue has representation from both POV! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, there's no need to include a developing story. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that doesn't mean we can't add a mention of him growing up there and a mention of the disputed nature of the house, I've created an article on the house and was wonder if it should be linked here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Oxley_Road Zubin12 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the section regarding the current dispute over 38 Oxley Road was way too verbose, its removal was well justified, in my opinion. However, this is a substantial and notable controversy in which the Prime Minister is involved. Rarely does the Singaporean public place so much of its attention on an event (and rarely does political controversy occur in this country). It definitely deserves a mention. I recommend that this revision by Jane_Dawson be the standard until further more reliable information comes to light. NingOTI (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NingOTI I suppose that's alright but it seem's a bit too much like a stub to me, perhaps a line could be added about the PM denying the allegation made against him ? Zubin12 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Recommended revision until more reliable information is available. NingOTI (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Resorts[edit]

This section shouldn't be under 'Controversies'. Please discuss if you disagree. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main article: Integrated resort

During a parliament session on 18 April 2005, Lee announced the cabinet's decision to develop two casinos[1] and associated hotels and malls in Marina South[2] and Sentosa.[3] In an official release, Lee announced in April 2005:

"After weighing the matter carefully, the Cabinet has collectively concluded that we had no choice but to proceed with the IRs. As Prime Minister, I carry the ultimate responsibility for the decision."[4][5]

The National Council on Problem Gambling (Singapore) was set up in Singapore on 31 August 2005 to address problem gambling. Within the first three days of the casino opening at Resorts World Sentosa eight people were arrested.[6] Amidst a variety of social issues that made the news thereafter,[7] gamblers seeking help in Singapore increased[8] after the casinos opened,[9] with more than 3000 Malaysians reportedly gambling in Singapore daily.[10] Between 2010 and 2013 both Resorts World Sentosa and Marina Bay Sands have become the world's most profitable casinos.[11][12]

References

  1. ^ "Controversies at two casinos". AsiaOne. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  2. ^ Cohen, Muhammad. "No bling, no buzz in Singapore". Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  3. ^ Ho, Ai Li. "S'pore casino hiring card dealers in Taiwan". The Straits Times. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  4. ^ Chan, Stanislaus Jude. "SINGAPORE: As Casino Opens, Watch for Its Social Impact Begins". IPS-Inter Press Service. IPS Correspondents. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  5. ^ "Singapore to have two IRs with a casino each". Getforme. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  6. ^ "Singapore Casino arrested 8 in first 3 days of operation". Youtube. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  7. ^ "Casinos in Singapore will create havoc". Topix LLC. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  8. ^ "Dad cashed out son's education fund to gamble". The New Paper. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  9. ^ "More problem gamblers seek help in Singapore". Technology Marketing Corporation. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  10. ^ "More than 3,000 Malaysians gamble in Singapore daily". Star Publications (M) Bhd. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  11. ^ "The biggest losers". The Economist. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  12. ^ "High-rollers from China make Singapore casinos see red". Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 8 October 2014.

Lee Kuan Yew's house[edit]

This is an encyclopedia. Sensational accusations should not be highlighted like a tabloid without proof. There are numerous allegations and rebuttals on both sides and all of it revolve around the house - whether to demolish, preserve or gazette as a monument. Without the house, there is no dispute. As some early editors pointed out on disallowing this earlier, BLP needs greater restraint. It's not for us to judge or perpetuate the accusations unless proven. Both sides have agreed to discuss privately. If there is no further news, we may never know what they agree upon or withdrawn their allegations. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are facts. There is nothing sensational or tabloid about those facts. White-washing is not constructive here. Jane Dawson (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Facts are facts" - Your one-liner reply looks similar to broad statements made against the PM - no specifics, no evidence. Can you elaborate the facts here please. Wrigleygum (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word allegation. The fact is that he is being accused of abusing his power. Please read the accusations with documentary evidences presented here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByodqaSLlpPIV0QtSmt4SlhhaEk/view This is not so much different from other controversies such as the City Harvest Church saga. Presenting this as a fact does not constitute as personal attack since no one, except the siblings, is saying he is guilty of the abuse. Rather, by removing and censoring, you are trying to project a slanted point of view in this biography that calls for neutrality. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact is that he is being accused of abusing his power" — It sounds like you don't care to question whether the allegations are true, but only the 'fact' that they were made.
Thanks to user:DMacks, his block has saved us a trip to ANI. In the meantime, you are free to list here specific substantiated allegations by the siblings for discussion, to avoid future reverts. Thanks Wrigleygum (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUBLICFIGURE WP:WELLKNOWN In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

It is up to the court to decide the truthfulness of the allegations. I am not a judge. Thanks. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have to let the dispute simmer down. Most major reports occurred on the first few days when emotions are high and it’s the same here. It became less sensational after rebuttals, especially after the parliament session. In accepting private resolution, the siblings probably wanted an upper hand and repeated some allegations already answered, yet they themselves did not provide satisfactory response to some queries. I'm sure both sides will issue some statement or be interviewed on the progress in the coming weeks. Either way there's no hurry, Best Wrigleygum (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Most major reports occurred on the first few days when emotions are high and it’s the same here. " One month has elapsed since incident occurred and no more news is coming out. Isn't that long enough? Jane Dawson (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the differing views, its good to discuss everything out here first before committing to the main article. I think the last thing we want to see here is a repeat of the Amos Yee article which is horrendously overly detailed where many editors were just updating any and every little nugget as it comes in and hanging onto every detail, important or not (good luck trying to convince them anything is not relevant). That article of a mainly single case is even longer than THIS article, and other editors had started to give up on trying to summarizing it due to the inevitable edit war. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That piece is really bloated! I guess people got tired of it as the section on the second police investigation is relatively short, even though he received a longer sentence for it. Wrigleygum (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so is it appropriate to title the heading as a dispute about the Oxley house? Where is the controversy? Is it about the house, LKY's will or PM abusing his power? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Dawson (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The start and end of this dispute is about the fate of the house. Since this is in the controversy section, "Dispute over.." is not needed. "Fate of.." may be appropriate but the title will be longer. Between "Lee Kuan Yew' and "Oxley", the former would stress his ownership and last wishes. As for "family home" vs house, the former will underscore that all the siblings stayed there in their childhood so have some attachment to it. That’s my short summary. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the greatest point of public dispute in this whole saga? Is it the preservation or demolition of the house? Nope, 90% in Reach survey wanted the house to be demolished. Is it about the will? Nope, the will already granted probate in court. What affect Singaporeans the most is whether PM abuse his powers or not. So, stop avoiding this issue and put it down on Wikipedia. Jane Dawson (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What affect Singaporeans the most is whether PM abuse his powers or not.
1) Your wording makes it very obviously an opinionated statement. Wikipedia is not just for Singaporeans. Articles must thus be written for the purpose of readership by international readers while maintaining rules as set out by Wikipedia. 2) From multiple instances, I always thought the word "Controversy", especially as a label, tends to be avoided per "Contentious labels" under MOS? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the heading title for that section is "Controveries". The subheading should logically state the controversy instead of mentioning something else. If it is not contentious, then it is not a controversy. Perhaps you would like to quote where you find under MOS that forbid stating the contentious fact, since the last I checked, it wasn't there. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know its under the heading "Controversies". Not asking to rename that, just a random musing, as I had the policy quoted at me in the past. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my case that "abuse of power" is a sweeping allegation that is unsubstantiated. As a title, it could mislead readers who do not read the details of the case. In this edit disagreement, you should be able to argue if the evidence is credible rather than simply saying you are not the judge, yet picking the most damaging headline from countless media coverage. The house–as the subject of the dispute– is the best option unless the accusation is proven later. I don't mind "Fate of Lee Kuan Yew's house" but no one argued against my points above. Also, do abide by Wikipedia norms by properly indenting your conversation instead of starting a new paragraph each time you post. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my responses as follows:

1) The Lee siblings substantiated their accusation with hard evidence. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByodqaSLlpPIV0QtSmt4SlhhaEk 2) The accusation is most significant in the whole saga, precisely because it is damaging to the nation. Read WP: PUBLICFIGURE. Jane Dawson (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the word "Abuse of power " in the heading, provided it is prefixed by "Allegation", as reports from reputable RS like Reuters and CNN has done. However, my concern is that this abuse is actually being alleged specifically by the siblings, something that is not apparent from the heading. If "Abuse of Power", "Allegation" and "Siblings" can be squeezed into a reasonable length heading, I am open to it. How about "Familial Allegations of Abuse of Powers on Oxley House"? (Sorry if it sounds odd, just something off the top of my head). My rationale is, "Abuse of power" allegations have actually been in the wild before. It was only the fact that it was by the siblings that made this instance such big news. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current subheading looks fine. Those edits I have made always include the word "allegation". So can I conclude that we have a consensus now amongst at least 3 out of 4 editors to include the phrase "abuse of power" in the subheading? What say you, Wrigleygum? Jane Dawson (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There should be something on the page that alleged that Hsien Long abused his power. Even the world media are reporting the allegations and LHL denied the charges. Point to note.. Zhanzhao and Wiggerlygum and staunch supporters of the establishment. Go look at what they wanted to do Lee Kuan Yew's entry, turning it to a page praising him which was fortunately stopped by other Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rules and policies exist for a reason. Just because you are unable to get your version of your article approved cos it was violating policy/rules, does not mean the editors are biased. Unfortunately certain pages are prone to activism from any side. Rules and policies allow us to maintain neutrality. I.e. I note that in your brief contribution history, your past 2 edits on this article have been undone by others who found your edits questionable, with good reason. Once by Lemongirl942 and another by Boing! said Zebedee. Will you be addressing them as "staunch supporters of the establishment" next? PS: You would do well to read up on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also by the way, you still have not answered my question here, regarding your primary account. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're alleging i am Cmr08. If you're very positive about it, please go through the proper channel to remove me instead of brining it here. Thanks. Personal attacks? Nah. I am just bringing attention to other editors that these two users tend to support contents that are pro-establishment. All of you can have fun reading their past edits here, like turning the article to something you might see in North Korea (hey! i didnt accuse ZhanZhao and wrigleygum as the same person!): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Kuan_Yew&oldid=653589876 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Kuan_Yew#Regarding_the_proclaimation_that_Mr_Lee_was_the_only_person_in_the_world_that_brought_a_country_to_1st_world_in_a_single_generation. Yes, these allegations are definitely sensational, but it does not mean they are not true. We have dedicated articles on allegations of Donald Trump's sexual misconduct (claims made by 15 unknown ladies) and Obama citizenship controversies. Although the house in the centre of the issue, im sure the charges that Hsien Loong abusing his power are equally serious too. You know something is extremely wrong when dozen of reputable media outlets worldwide (maybe except Singapore's state controlled media) are reporting on the allege abuse of power and wikipedia censors it, suppressed by zhanzhao and Wrigleygum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Don't even know who Cmr08 is, never even noticed him/her before. 2) Comment on content, not the editor. 3) Thats 2 personal attacks on me and Wrigleygum. Consider yourself suitably warned. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhanzhao:, thank you for clarifying that you were not referring to me. My entire editing history in this article was one edit, in which I put the headers in the correct format per manual of style. I have no idea why this other editor brought my name into this discussion. Cmr08 (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Cmr08. I have not idea what that was about either - My edits on that particular topic have been minor, and mostly just corrections. I spent more time on the Talkpage than the main article. Not even sure why SecretSquirrel is so riled up about.</shrug> We're all here just to make the project work. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zhangzhao, I have objected to the use of "abuse of power" in the title as stated above. It should be reverted to the status quo (before the recent block), until we have a consensus. Do you have a comment on the points I raised? I trust you are more objective than the others as an established editor, so it's not a problem if we disagree. There is DR and 3rd opinion we can turn to.
One compromise is having a mention of 'abuse' in the text but not in the title, as in - "Lee Hsien Loong's siblings allege that he was abusing power by using 'organs of the state' as the prime minister..." In this context, 'organs of the state' is also more specific. I will also be removing the refs added this morning by User:SecretSquirrel78 as they are the earliest breaking news reports from the first week of the dispute where we'd expect sensational 'headlines' to be the norm. Important points are mostly covered in latter refs. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just my thoughs on this, as replied to JAne Dawson. (This discussion is getting messy, literally and figuratively) Zhanzhao (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This shows you're recklessly removing information. I checked the ref I added. Take example CNBC, the report was dated 20 June, way after the initial charges. SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations of the abuse of power are one of the critical points of the saga, the other being the house. Hence since the abuse of power charge is gist of the issue, it should be in the title. SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed any information from the article. The only thing I did was to move the references to a proper location (out of the heading), and change the text from
Lee Hsien Loong's siblings allege that he was abusing "organs of the state"
to the more accurate write-up
Lee Hsien Loong's siblings allege that he was using "organs of the state".
Per your cnbc link, the exact text used in that article in reference to the "organ of state" (which only shows up once so there is no way to confuse it) was
fear that he would use the organs of the state against them.
Reckless? Looks like someone is recklessly changing the words of the source here, but it isn't me. Please read WP:Original Research. Come on, SecretSquirrel78, its not that hard to remember a line from the source you yourself provided. :/ Zhanzhao (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. But the link I provided is: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/06/20/singapore-pm-responds-to-abuse-of-power-claims.html
I cannot find the text you quoted :/ but I did find the word abuse spelled boldly in the headline. In essence, it doesn't matter what are the exact words any media posted. But all of them have something in common and their message is very clear: Hsien Loong was alleged to abuse his powers via the state organs. They don't have to say it word for word in the Wikipedia article as that it's plain plagiarism.
Clearly you're manipulating the words in the sources for them to be in your advantage, which says a lot about your (lack of) credibility and motives.  :( SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, there is no WP:Consensus in Talk for changes to the title and inclusion of early-dated reports in general, so I am reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO - "If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain"
Please read through WP:BLP, WP:Recentism, WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and other pillars of Wikipedia for a start before writing the next immediate idea in your mind, there's no hurry. Another reminder, do abide by Wikipedia norms by properly indenting your conversation instead of starting a new paragraph each time you post. Wrigleygum (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SecretSquirrel, I have only made one edit regarding the abuse/use wording. Its based on this Pre-existing cnbc link that specifically mentions "organ of the state".
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/03/singapore-pm-lee-hsien-loong-says-wants-to-avoid-legal-action-against-siblings.html
The word "use" is in the write-up specific to that context of "organ of the state". "Abuse" is only in the context of "power", not "organ of the state". Indeed, there is some manipulation going on here, but it seems You are the one doing it. Editors are not supposed to mix and match the terms that carry different meanings any old how, else you are just blatantly misquoting the subjects in the source, a BLP on both the subject and his siblings by putting words in their mouth where they did not say that way. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you accused me of misquoting something from an article and added a smiley. Then I reminded you that's not the article I posted. Instead of addressing what I said, you ignored me and called me mixing and matching sources. 

Sorry. Maybe the phrase "abusing state organs" is doesn't suit you. Let's have a consensus. What about this: "allege that he was abusing his powers, using "organs of the state"".

No more abuse of state organs.

Cheers and good night to you. See you tomorrow! SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this page been protected ?[edit]

Zubin12 (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zubin12: Edit warring / content dispute including potential BLP violations — See Special:Permalink/790037225. 103.1.70.145 (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 July 2017[edit]

In the section "Controversies", sub-section "Defamation lawsuits:" should not have a colon (":") there. 103.1.70.145 (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 fixed  Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lee Hsien Loong. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lee Hsien Loong. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lee Hsien Loong. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Controversy[edit]

The following section is not controversial at all, simply speculationa and comments by Goh and public. Nor arguments between Goh Chok tong and Lee hsien loong as the text make it out to be. Discuss here if you don't agree.111.65.39.212 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Major controversies[edit]

  • Ngerng was found guilty of suggesting that PM Lee criminally misappropriated people's CPF monies. Judge says there's no triable defence.
  • Raising of utility prices is never popular, and negative reactions are common, but the "protest" in Hong Lim park was attended by only 100 people - way over-stated and hardly comparable to tens of thousands elsewhere. 111.65.36.194 (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up archiving[edit]

There was a messy manual archiving done by an IP [1], [2], [3]. The archive 1 is messed up (content was created, but not removed from this page). I have reverted all of it and I will add a bot here to do the archiving, which is cleaner.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--DreamLinker (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am using the archival tool to archive the threads you have fixed. It should be clean. robertsky (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World statesman award and other edits[edit]

A mention of the World Stateman Award was added to the article [4]. I removed it [5], thought it seems the IP wants to add it back [6], [7]. The reason I removed it was because it doesn't seem to be a notable award and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These kind of awards by small private societies are quite commonly awarded to political leaders/head of states. The award seems to have been reported in Singapore-based media, but I cannot find reports in other media, which is surprising since the awarding foundation is based in New York. It is also out of place in the section named 13th Cabinet (if at all it is added, it should be added to the Honours section). What do others think?--DreamLinker (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed robertsky (talk)
Agreed with which part? If it is about adding to Honours section, then he should have moved what the other editor inserted or discussed first, instead of edit-warring. 111.65.60.237 (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, about moving to the honour section. As for the behaviour in both parties, it would have been better if the IP editor instead of commenting to raise to WP:ANI but aiming to resolve in the Talk page here, and DreamLinker communicated the alternative location idea earlier if he had the idea earlier. That been said, the IP editor has revert the edit while I am typing this. I guess someone has to move it then (I am mobile at the moment, and am not comfortable editing articles on mobile) robertsky (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have moved it as you were typing. I was going by the books. Good day. 111.65.60.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he gets an award from a local entity or alumni and only reported by local press, it would be enough. Since you are from India, you might want to complain to "Connectedtoindia.com" for covering this news.
You should have brought it here earlier. WP:3RR warning given. 111.65.60.237 (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you added the content and I removed it. According to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the next step is a discussion to gain consensus which ideally you should have started, but I did. Instead you edit warred (using multiple IPs) to keep your version which is not OK.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the award, generally there has to be some coverage from multiple media organisations. Local media will almost always cover stuff like this, which is expected. What is somewhat unexpected in this case is that it was not covered in New York media, which is local to where the award was presented. I can only see coverage in Singapore based media, which makes me wonder if this is an insignificant award given to just about any head of state.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Connectedtoindia.com" is a Singapore based media company which tends to focus NRIs in Singapore. This does not count as a reliable source but is more like a blog curated by a company. IBTimesSG is the Singapore edition (by this I mean the site devoted to Singapore, since there is no paper version) and has previously been called out for being a borderline content farm and often has click-bait articles.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil name[edit]

I am a bit puzzled as to why there is a Tamil name in the lead, given that the subject is not ethnically Tamil. Is it possible to verify if this name is "official"? Usually in India related articles, MOS:INDICSCRIPT is followed and names in local languages are removed.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content from to controversy section to PM section[edit]

Some of the content was boldly moved to PM section from the controversy section in this edit [8]. It was reverted by SecretSquirrel78 to WP:STATUSQUO but then edit warred by 111.65.39.204. However, edit warring does not imply consensus, so I have partially reverted the changes back to status quo [9]. Let's discuss it here please. I would be interested to know why the content about the lawsuit should be moved into the section which covers his political career as PM.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Status Quo is after the disputed content - libel suits that were settled without further court action - have been moved out of the controversy section. The Edit Summary by the first IP editor is clear and you are pretending not to read it and not explaining your current reverts here before doing so. 111.65.36.41 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first IP editor in his edit summary claims that since the court cases have been settled, therefore end of controversy. It was a controversy nevertheless, regardless of its currency and should be recorded as so.Jane Dawson (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you are not correct about the long term WP:STATUSQUO here. The content about nepotism allegations and libel suits was in the controversy section all along 12 May 2019, 11 September 2019. It was first added on [24 September 2019 and repeatedly edit warred back in by you without consensus. Most importantly, simply because something was settled doesn't mean it should be removed from Wikipedia or not called a controversy. In almost all cases controversies are resolved, but still called controversies nonetheless--DreamLinker (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, unless otherwise stated, all current edits here and at the article - by IP addresses with 111.65.** - are mine. 111.65.36.41 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the long term WP:STATUSQUO version?[edit]

I think the first thing to clarify is what is the long term statusquo version. The IP claims that 23 September 2019 is the one. As explained above, I believe the long term status quo version is the one where content about "allegations of nepotism and subsequent libel suits" is part of the controversy section. Can be verified from 12 May 2019, 11 September 2019 and any other diffs before 23 September 2019. The change on 23 September 2019 was not discussed and also opposed by other editors, though the IP managed to edit war their version back in [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].--DreamLinker (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will request a 3O input.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: Howdy hello! Responding to a request at WP:3O. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading of the dispute is that the IP does not want to label a section on salary, or the libel suits, as controversy. DreamLinker thinks they should all be labeled as controversy. It appears that the Status Quo version labelled all as controversy (given the historical versions going back months). But the statusquo version isn't exactly relevant here anymore. There is clearly a content dispute. My take on the content dispute is that all should be labelled as controversy. Controversy doesn't mean inherently bad, merely that some folks found it good and some folks found it bad, and thus there was disagreement. The fact that all have been covered in reliable media sources as such means we should present them as controversies. If you would like me to respond further, please make sure to ping me. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remember some controversies like the decision for having casinos and water price hike got deleted. We should have them restored as well.Jane Dawson (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
har. really? having casinos is a policy which reverses the long-time stance of no casinos in Singapore of previous administrations, thus controversial and should remain so even the concessions have remained and even being extended. I support restoring it. robertsky (talk)
There is a big difference between social issues like casinos vs BLPs and Public Figures. And I was expecting the 3rd Opinion to be applying guidelines and discussions elsewhere that is related to our topic, but it sounds like his personal opinion only. We do have a week for consensus, so there is time and I suggest taking a few days to reflect. 111.65.62.29 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, I can certainly WP:WIKILAWYER and throw policies and links left and right. But thats often not very useful. As I mentioned, the WP:STATUSQUO version is no longer relevant, whats relevant now is a discussion over what should or should not be called controversial and why. Also, the page may be protected for 7 days, but we have a theoretically infinite amount of time to come to consensus. As long as there is useful discussion here, there is no need to edit the main page until we have consensus. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you would like to explain why BLPs of WP:PUBLICFIGURE cannot have controversies. Even allegations and scandals of US presidents get into BLPs. Jane Dawson (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does everyone or anyone think this is the right question to ask btw? 111.65.37.68 (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not germane Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could. But before that, I see that 2 people have asked on your Talk page - whether you are a "student at Harvard" as stated on your User page, but you seem to have avoided the question. Can you confirm that on your talk page? 111.65.37.124 (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, don't divert the attention. Answer the question that Jane Dawson asked. I am curious too. robertsky (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robertsky, there is no doubt I will answer and discuss further, that's the point of this section. Meanwhile, I like to see her address it quickly for everyone's curiosity as well. 111.65.37.124 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there's no reason to need to know that, nor should the user tell you. Nor is that germane to this discussion in literally any way. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. IP, personal information about an editor is not relevant to the discussion here. Please understand that editors are under no compulsion to reveal their personal information. Continuing to ask for such information and bringing it up might constitute harassment. Article Talk pages are not for discussing an editor's personal information anyway. Let's get back to topic. Would you answer Jane Dawson's question?--DreamLinker (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, "everyone's curiosity"? really? I am not interested in that at the very least, and so are two other editors here. We more interested in your response instead as it directly impacts on this article. robertsky (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, simply because.. now that I've seen the queries on her talk page, I cannot unsee it. Harvard as we know is not just any Uni, but the top of the Ivy league, according some respect.. and great for her to confirm it.

I think all of us will be perfectly happy to discuss topics without knowing each other's background. But since she chose to specifically declare it on her user page for some reason, it seems people (at least at her talk page) would like her to confirm it. So please let her do that, as I say it'll be great for her. A confirmation can be as simple as a Yes/No answer on her page. 111.65.37.68 (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to wikipedia's own page on Controversy, Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view, as long the incident is subjected to prolonged public dispute or debate, such incident should be listed under controversies section. Hence I do agree we should have the controversies section.
Jane Dawson's question is directed specifically at you, IP editor. I believe Jane's question is trying to find out why you refuse to have a controversies section and working towards having a consensus. As it stands now, the current consensus now is that we should have the section. I agree with Captain Eek that instead of status quo, we can list out the incidents and have a consensus which is or not controversial. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can start looking into the controversies removed from this edit and start restoring them. Jane Dawson (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should restore the controversies that were removed and insert the most important parts. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes controversial. The siblings are still at it.210.10.7.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Start reversion base on the general consensus?
Seems like most editors disagree with IP's removal of negative content of Lee. Should the removed content be re-added now? SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please proceed to do so. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of the talk page when the general consensus is to revert to the status quo but IP still disagrees and bulldozes what he wants. I informed him that any changes made should be agreed in the talk page since all the registered editors does not support the changes he is still trying to force it through!! (he also claimed that another anonymous IP supported him - which is a joke, such a coincidence that two IPs support the same exact changes - for all would could know, they could be the same person!!)SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the IP is being disruptive here.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP 111.65.x.x, please understand that we work with consensus here. If you keep edit warring, it doesn't help at all and will most likely cause you to be blocked from editing.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section[edit]

To be clear, the paragraphs in dispute were moved to the PM section, not deleted. That is, I agree they are important enough to remain in the article, but not major controversies. So the right question should be - which ones are major major enough for a separate 'controversy section' ?.

  • Libel suits: These have become the norm, ever since Lee Kuan Yew brought suits against western media when he was prime minister. At the time, western media allegations relate to nepotism and other defamation; subsequently all the media companies involved apologised and settled without going to court. Such libel suits have become normalised, as the government has made it clear that they will pursue every similar allegations through the courts to clear their name. Thus these should not be called 'controversies', as court action is always expected from current and future ministers, and the government in general.
  • Salaries: The first IP's edit summary explained that changes in ministerial salaries were "initiated by elder Lee (Kuan Yew) and implemented by the previous PM GCT (Goh Chok Tong), just another issue some people are unhappy about, moving to prior section". From sources and the timeline, I concur. In fact, Lee Hsien Loong initiated a review by an independent board, which recommended ministerial salaries to be lowered instead. 111.65.60.235 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38 Oxley Road dispute is ongoing, as PM Lee has been unwilling to sue his siblings to date, saying that doing so would further besmirch their parents' names. 111.65.60.235 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clearer, the heading says "Controversy", not "Major Controversy". As long as the controversies are important enough to be included, they should be placed under the correct heading.
  • As explained above, the libel suits that were moved to PM section are a norm and non-controversial per se. They are only notable because the media firms involved are well-known. And these firms have not repeated similar allegations since then. The cases should simply be noted in the PM section.
We have several editors with 1000 over edits each concurring so in the above discussion. It's clear that you are an experienced editor using IP addresses to circumvent a ban. Looking at the manner you are commenting, harassing me and not responding to above discussion, you may even have a COI on this page that you are not declaring. I suggest any admin reading this to place the article under a permanent extended confirmed protection to enforce the ban effectively on you and any of your socks. Jane Dawson (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussions by editors above were on disparate matters, not the individual cases (like the libel suits) that we should be focusing on. For myself, I don't see a need to register if my content contributions are few, just fighting vandalism and issues like this one. I have no bans or COI - see, now you are the one who is speculating. And I wasn't responding earlier specifically because of your unclear persona, as stated on your talk page. 111.65.39.250 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Fully agreed with Jane Dawson. Its clear that what IP and his fellow sock puppets want are either his way or his way. No other way despite the general consensus on the talk page disagreeing with him. And he has the cheek to say that "another IP" agreed with what he said, for all would know, it could very well be the same person (quite obviously in fact). I think it will be fair to ask some sort of page protection if he reverts back the previous edit. There's no point going but and fourth as he's just going to switch IP addresses and say a third person agrees with him too — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The PM section is supposed to describe the political career as PM and contains information by term/years. It largely contains the major highlights of the term as PM such as policies or legislation enacted. This is followed in other articles about politicians as well like Donald Trump. Content about the controversies does not fit in this section and is therefore listed in a separate section.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it that if I do find BLPs of western public figures, especially politicians, that have controversies integrated in their political career, you will be standing down on this point. 111.65.39.250 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right Honourable title[edit]

Why is there a repeated adding of the Right Honourable title for Lee Hsien Loong? Singapore does not use the Right Honourable title at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2076:9A:DDFE:EEC2:181C:EC3D (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terms in government[edit]

Should the period between 2004 and 2006 be referred to as his first term? Or should we take into account only elected terms, which began in 2006? Official media does not seem to note the amount of terms he has served. Seloloving (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2004 to 2006 should be referred to as his first term as PM, he did form his first cabinet after being sworn in as PM. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will renumber the terms after I have divided the section "Socio-economic policies" into their respective years. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential edit warring on 28 August[edit]

@AlsoWukai and @BlueboyLINY - may I know what's going on? Please do not engage in an edit war on a page where I am trying to make massive changes to. On my part, I do not see anything wrong with AlsoWukai's copyediting of the article. Seloloving (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, BlueboyLINY reverted my helpful edits without giving a reason. So I can only assume he has it in for me.AlsoWukai (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Nice job on the article, Seloloving. I hope you don't mind if I came by to improve upon the lead section during this restructuring. Telsho (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Telsho: Thank you! There's still a long way to go, and I am getting caught up by Uni these days. @ZKang123: assisted in the lead too. Seloloving (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Telsho: Please do work with ZKang123 to improve on the lead, as information like constituencies being merged isn't noteworthy for the lead of a BLP article. The Paya Lebar airbase wasn't a joint project with the US. You have also removed the information on POFMA, which is a significant legislation passed during LHL's term, without adequately explaining why ("recentism" is not a good enough reason). Seloloving (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seloloving: Will keep that in mind. Telsho (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Telsho: Please also talk with us the proposed changes before editing it. The lead is currently too long and there are some information added that is unncessary. I will trim them down when I am free.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @ZKang123:, what do you suggest cutting? Telsho (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Telsho: Bringing the discussion on the lead here.

There are some parts, like what Seloloving had said, that LHL is not directly involved (still need to read more on his involvement in the two historic summits). Likewise, your changes have made the viewpoints about him unbalanced; which probably overmphasised his greatness. I have re-inserted the GST hike and the political reforms he had made under his tenure, and shortern about the part regarding the GDP recovery; that can be in the body itself, supported by relevant sources.

Archived the deleted section here:

His government's policy of strict neutrality was instrumental, and the country conducted historic summit meetings such as the Ma–Xi meeting between China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) as well as the 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit during his tenure.

The article isn't my top priority at the moment, but I am glad to be of help if necessary.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks for clarifying. However there are two parts I would like to point that you had added:

His government also introduced political reforms in 2010 with the legalisation of internet activism and increasing the amount of opposition representation in parliament.

and

Lee also proposed a planned GST hike to 9% in 2018 to help increasing funding in social sectors in Singapore.

Could you be more specific as to what these are? Although it might make more sense if a reader lives in Singapore, it would seem fairly vague from an outside perspective, especially if one is not well-versed with the country and its politics. Furthermore, though I'm aware that "GST" stands for the Goods and Services Tax, not all countries have such a tax and even with those which does, it's more often referred to as "VAT", with the exception of some Commonwealth countries. So I would think just using its abbreviation without clarifying as to what exactly it is or for might confuse some readers. Telsho (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of construction tag

@Telsho: Hi. I have undone your removal of the tag for now, as I still intend to massively expand the page in the near future. While I appreciate your contributions and Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit, it would be courteous to at least let the person who placed the tag (me) know, as they would have had a very good reason to place it in the first place. As seen on the talkpage discussion above, the revamp is still incomplete. In addition, the sections on LHL's terms prior to 2015 need work as well. I do thank you for taking an interest, and hope you will continue to edit the article.

This process will unfortunately take a while as I am not as free as I once was, having just started university. I am also mostly single handedly writing entire sections, so please bear with my slow but incremental edits. Seloloving (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed to restructure the entire page[edit]

@TheGreatSG'rean @Sculture65 @Robertsky @SecretSquirrel78 @DreamLinker (most recent editors to this page and the 2020 general elections)

I would like to propose a restructuring of the entire page to integrate the controversies into Lee's career through the decades, together with his accomplishments and decisions taken for Singapore (MBS, Trump Kim, KMT-CCP, 2008 recession, Terrex incident, etc, the whole works), with only the notable ones (lawsuits and Oxley House), as part of his "public profile". Salary is a PAP Govt problem as a whole and not just a Lee Hsien Loong problem and should be integrated into the article itself. As far as I can see too, the word "controversies" is an extremely biased label and should be used with caution - not even Donald Trump or - closer to home - Mahathir Mohamed's page use it as a subtitle. That said, I would like to raise my personal view that this article is extremely unwieldy at the moment, with barely a mention of anything he has achieved or Lee's personal views. As DreamLinker mentioned, "major highlights of the term as PM such as policies or legislation enacted" should be the focal point of this page, including his views on US-China relations, Hong Kong protests, Taiwan, and ASEAN as a whole.

I would suggest that if interested, each of us could research on each terms's worth of his policies and summarize it accordingly into two or three paragraphs, special emphasis would be his opinion on regional and world affairs. Seloloving (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed the NLB for source articles, and intend to revamp the page in the near future. As it stands, my proposal remains to merge most of the items in the "Controversies" section to the main article during his various tenure of past positions, while notable ones such as the Lee's propensity to sue his critics and Oxley House dispute will remain as part of public profile, as they are unrelated to his actual management of the government. Salary as I have mentioned before, is a PAP government problem as a whole that particularly focuses on the position, than the person, and will be reduced to a footnote in the Lead. The section will be transferred to Prime Minister of Singapore's page. Please do feedback. Seloloving (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the arguments for and against the inclusion of a "Controversies" section, I think there is a legitimate concern that the section is atypical of other pages for political figures. However, there's also sound reasoning that the above section should focus squarely on his premiership. There was a consensus to establish which "controversy" should be portrayed separately, but it was never carried out (perhaps due to the socking attempts of the IP editor, which placed his arguments in an unfavorable light.) His argument that other "BLPs of western public figures, especially politicians, that have controversies integrated in their political career, you will be standing down on this point" deserves attention nevertheless.
I note that there's no standard on what qualifies as a controversy (major or minor), and pages for controversial figures like Carrie Lam, Rodrigo Duterte, Benjamin Netanyahu and Najib Razak differ widely in their presentation of the matter. Hence, I propose that:
Recurring: lawsuits and nepotism, should be filed under the seperate title, detailing the circumstances over the years.
One off: Condo case and Oxley Road house, to be merged into the article as they occur primarily over a single term.
Salary: Move to Prime Minister of Singapore, with a footnote in this page's Lead that he's the highest paid head of government in the world. My reason: this problem is a fixture of the position of the Prime Minister, and not the person.
Additional proposal added on 26 August: Since the Oxley House has its fairshare of disputes as well, I will combine it into lawsuits against critics as well.
Please do give your feedback, as they are much valued. ​​​​​ Seloloving (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that I have commenced with my edits for the page. My personal view is that, after three weeks of no feedback to my original proposal, the STATUSQUO is no longer in effect and should not be used as a reason to reinstate the original version while I rework the page. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and should you deem my edits problematic, please do revert and and kindly ping me here so we can discuss it. Seloloving (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per what you noted, controversy might be localised and not blown up overseas (aka less coverage). I generally agree with your proposals but like to add an additional point.
  • If any particular incident (or series of incidents) receive wide international coverage, it is of personal preference that it has its own subsection under Controversy section. This actually ties in to your additional proposal that Oxley House incident has widespread international coverage. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - I have revised my opinion and retained it in "Controversies", but subsumed it under lawsuits as it's primarily a legal matter. Would that be acceptable? Seloloving (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It will be okay to me! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other proposed changes I will be making:
(rename) Foreign diplomacy -> Foreign Policy, describing LHL's government when handling relations with other nations. Due to his exceptionally long tenure as Prime Minister, subsuming each term with a Foreign Policy subsection wouldn't make sense, and it would be more coherent to group them all together, especially with Malaysia, Indonesia, US and China. The section should not be about Singapore's foreign affairs.
(new) Public Profile, describing LHL's thoughts on world affairs pertaining to the South China Sea, US-Chinese relations, ASEAN integration, globalization, etc.
(revamp) Salaries -> Government salaries, describing a short history of the scheme pegging governmental and civil servants pay to the private sector, with Lee's personal views, and critics.
I am still researching on more history and reading up books, so content adding will slow for a bit and pick up as required. Seloloving (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the proposal. Just keep it neutral but go ahead with the edits. Sculture65 (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a query. Should the article include the controversy with the reserved elections of 2017? That was a significant event in Singapore politics in 2016. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It probably should, as I think LHL was the one that proposed the reservation, but it should go into the main Fourth term section instead as it has already been well-documented on the 2017 Singaporean presidential election page itself. The controversies section should only be reserved for disputes specific to the person itself. I propose a one-two sentence brief on the matter within the Fourth term section. Seloloving (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing defamation case on alleged 1MDBs dealings[edit]

Background

The blogger Leong Sze Hian had reposted on Facebook an article with "allegations that former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak had signed "secret deals" with PM Lee in exchange for Singapore banks' help in laundering money from scandal-ridden Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad, or 1MDB" (quoted directly from ST). After PM Lee initiated defamation proceedings against him, Leong removed the post and countersued "that the defamation suit against him was an abuse of the process of the court." The counterclaim was dismissed by the court. As such, the current court proceeding deals sorely with Leong's refusal to apologise for posting unverified information.

I am seeking an opinion on how to insert the case into the lawsuits section. It does not look as if it has generated sufficient worldwide coverage to be considered as a "controversy" at the moment, but nevertheless is a lawsuit initiated by PM Lee and should be included. However, how can we include information on the case without alluding to 1MdB and creating undue weight on an unproven allegation? Should we wait for the four-day case to wrap up before adding anything? Seloloving (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to wait. The case is already tangential on Tean Lim's article. I would like to see if there will be enough materials to established a centralised page by a case itself, or sufficiently to create Leong Sze Hian's name. – robertsky (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the case has been adjourned. At the present, I feel there is too little information to add. Perhaps a dedicated article should be created in light of the prominence of the case, and linked back to this article. Seloloving (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an outline to the case and split the three legal matters to its own section titled "Legal suits". Seloloving (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated photo of LHL[edit]

@Rchua88: Hello, may I know to whose request were you replying to for the photo to be updated?

Copyrighted photos from the government of Singapore cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, as they can only host free files. Should you be updating the photo on request by the subject itself, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and post a request on the talkpage instead. A photo by the Ministry of Communications and Information will need to have its copyright verified via Commons:OTRS. Seloloving (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo update[edit]

In the interest of full disclosure - I wrote to MCI and PMO (separately) to ask if they would release some better photos of the Prime Minister for use on Wikipedia. They politely declined. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying! DMacks (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominals[edit]

Hello Seloloving, I saw that you removed the postnominals "MP" from the lead section. I thought I'd draw your attention to MOS:POSTNOM, which gives some guidance on community consensus on the subject. It's probably a good idea to keep it. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think MP counts as a "honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship". He was elected to serve as a MP; the appointment was not issued to him. In any case, none of the pages for the UK prime ministers have a MP in front of their names. See for example, Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron.
A postnominal would be awards such as those found in the list of Singaporean orders and decorations, such as Darjah Utama Temasek (DUT), or any awarded by foreign governments... Seloloving (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that makes sense, thanks. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Hsien_Loong/Archive_2&oldid=1064182113"