Talk:Grace Fu

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

three reliable sources fulfills WP:BLP[edit]

This automatic removal reeks of paranoid COI. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't remove the redlink + more references is always good[edit]

And I agree that the SDP reference by itself might be problematic, but they only concur with the previous references. It is only to make the bulk of references stronger. There's no reason to trim a reference: more references is always good. The redlink is a future article. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the current state fulfills BLP's conservative tone quite appropriately; Fu's salary is public knowledge and should be mentioned and is a fact, not tabloid opinion; all the sources used are not tabloidy in nature; furthermore it is favourable to Fu. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 22:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link to the SDP blog, as it is not an authoritative source. There is a limit to a number of citations you can squeeze in a paragraph. Your new interpretations of the BLP policy are very amusing, but they have no place on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no limit to the number of citations. It never hurts to have more citations. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 22:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the wikilink. It's a historically-relevant event that has been commented upon widely in the international media. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 22:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte, I have a few issues with the manner in which you are editing:

A1. Her comments sparked public debate over "whether politicians were motivated by public service or by million-dollar salaries already deemed to be the highest in the world"

You are inserting commentary from news stories in a manner that makes this page (and other pages on Singapore politics related articles) read like the same news stories themselves. Please stop using quotes from news stories that are only attributable to the journalist(s) and not the subject or a notable person comment on the subject.

A2. Many netizens defended Grace Fu's remark as fair, supporting her position that loss of privacy and public scrutiny is a large price to pay, compared to possibly higher-paying work in the public sector.

Nowhere does the source mention "compared to possibly higher-paying work in the public sector". This shouldn't even be the public sector, it should be the private sector. What are you doing?

A3. Edit summary: trimming SDP link as a compromise; your version is inferior as it includes criticisms that violate WP:BLP. please keep the redlink

Have you read WP:BLP? Criticisms on biographies of living persons can be included as long as they are conservatively and dispassionately reported, with due regard to the prominence of the event. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a tabloid. Our articles should read like encyclopedia articles. I am being lead to believe by your actions that you are pushing your own political agenda using Wikipedia as a vehicle. Also, stop including the hidden HTML comment, it's very disruptive. Please comment below. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: public sector. That was a typo. I'll fix it. IIRC, journalists are secondary sources; quotes from people directly affected are primary sources. We favour secondary interpretation typically -- see Wikipedia:Secondary sources. The decision not to include forbid any criticisms is a compromise. The private sector comparison is out of grammar/logic, since the "loss of privacy" is due to switching to a public career from a private one, which many news sources have commented upon.
My only agenda is history, that's all. I have reason to suspect you have an agenda too, given your editing pattern for Singaporean politics articles, and rejecting any form of commentary by political observers. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 23:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting policy on secondary sources: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." This says that articles may make analytic or evaluative claims based on a reliable secondary source, and it doesn't read as saying that whole-scale inclusion of commentary by news reporters into Wikipedia articles is warranted.
I don't have a history of tenacious editing on Singapore articles like you do. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove "compared to possibly higher paying work in the private sector" from the article, as it is unreferenced. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 00:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP policy is used to excise potentially slanderous and libelous material in advance, by requiring high-quality sources, and indeed "dispassionate language". It is not used to excise discussion of politically significant events for the subject's convenience.
I will add some more references to make the comparison clearer. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 00:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some, however, expressed concern that it will be even harder to attract top private sector talent to join politics. Writing on her Facebook page. Senior Minister of State Grace Fu noted that when she joined politics in 2006, "pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were". TodayOnline elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are now saying that I am excising "discussion of politically significant event for the subject's convenience" by asking you to stop quoting a news reporter directly from their article? I thought we were discussing proper representation of secondary sources. Grace Fu did not make this comment, a notable opposition figure did not make this comment, it's something that you have used based on a piece of news writing by a reporter. Do you see the difference now?
Remember that "possibly" is a weasel word. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote that sentence. As I recall, we are free to cite journalists' remarks if we attribute them. Journalists are respected experts in their field. I quote them directly because I do not want to portray analyses as fact. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles should not quote analyses verbatim from news reports made by non-notable journalists. Yahoo! News is a credible source of information, paraphrase the assertion appropriately, and within context as per WP:NPOV and WP:SECONDARY. Also, please review the section on 'Writing style' and the sub-section on 'Public figures' on WP:BLP. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lte to the party, but the writeup looks fine at the moment. Is there anything specific(other than what was pointed out above) that requires attention?Zhanzhao (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zhanzhao, I think as per WP:SECONDARY and BLP policy (section on 'Writing style' and subsection on 'Public figures'), news reporters should not be quoted directly into the article, but the facts asserted should be paraphrased and inserted within context. Therefore, I would like the insertion "whether politicians were motivated by public service or by million-dollar salaries already deemed to be the highest in the world" to be modified accordingly. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I thought it would be relevant to include her facebook statement in its entirety. It is not long, and has been the cause of much chatter. Singpass (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion:
whether politicians were motivated by public service or by million-dollar salaries already deemed to be the highest in the world is most definitely an opinion piece from the journalist behind the article. Based on wiki's policies, the statement is most certainly not authoritative and it's solely the opinion of the author of the article. Therefore not FACT. If it's fact, I'm sure all 100% of Singaporeans will say the same thing as well but you are unlikely to get a consensus as everyone will have different views of the situation but this clearly isn't the case. (See WP:NEWSORG). - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 11:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Grace Fu. 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) 19:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grace Fu. 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) 04:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New photograph at Commons[edit]

The following photograph of Grace Fu has been uploaded to Commons:

Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dame[edit]

Dame cannot be used as subject is not a British/Commonwealth citizen. 115.133.56.125 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grace_Fu&oldid=1207320151"