Talk:Lee Kuan Yew/Archive 3

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

Looks like he is dying

When it happens, there will be lots of traffic. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Somebody of the handle User:Alarics reverted an edit when a recent press release by ESM Goh Chok Tong indicated that apart from Mr Lee Kuan Yew recovering slightly, that the public may also rightly refer to the Prime Minister's Office press release instead; as of this present day the last official news release by the PMO may be found here: http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/mr-lee-kuan-yew-condition-improved suggesting that Mr Lee Kuan Yew's condition has improved slightly. As I have yet visited SGH personally there is almost little way I may know directly of the medical situation whether he is dying as Wowee Zowee suggested above or otherwise; with whatever limited knowledge available, given my own bias that I am keen on His recovery as little as there may be, the POV tag is being added. 林榮祥 11:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding. POV is not at issue. My edit was nothing to do with the text about his health, it was because of inappropriate capitalisation and wrong parameters in references. By all means put the other stuff back in. I have removed the POV tag. -- Alarics (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected the page

After seeing a parade of IP edits and unconfirmed reports of his death that had to be removed, I've protected this article for two weeks. I wouldn't object to an admin extending that or unprotecting this earlier, but there should be a decent rationale. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We apparently have jumped the gun on his death

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/pmo-lodging-police-report-about-fake-website-announcing-

Plaasjaapie (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Can an Admin re-write this section please?

"Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher praised “his way of penetrating the fog of propaganda and expressing with unique clarity the issues of our time and the way to tackle them." A later Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said of Lee: he is "the smartest leader I ever met." [I just fixed this para in the talk page with an obvious edit. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]

Since when is Tony Blair the successor of Margaret Thatcher? John Major was British Prime Minister from 1990-1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.18.119 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

Death year is wrongly reflected.

116.14.112.75 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on corrupt and conviction leader

I've taken this portion out of the aritcle so that it can be discussed here. Several issues:

  1. There is no reference for "often described" and without a ref, it is simply an unsourced opinion.
  2. The view of one columnist in Time of LKY as "not... corrupt" is not enough to merit such a lengthy treatment as fact, and it certainly does not rise to the importance of putting it in the lead section.
  3. Overall, the anecdotal single voice opinions do not belong in the lead section. That also goes for the second 2010 quote on "There is no better strategic thinker..." which may have a place in this article further down, but not here.

I welcome discussion on this @Wrigleygum: @Tayzhian: -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Lee is often described as a conviction leader, incorrupt and of high intelligence. He eschewed populist policies in favor of long-term social and economic measures. Named one of Time's Most Influential People of the 20th Century in 1999, he was cited as a Master Planner - "who towers over other Asian leaders on the international stage...What really sets this complex man apart from Asia's other nation-builders is what he didn't do - he did not become corrupt, and he did not stay in power too long". In 2010, he again made its list of World's Most Influential, profiled as a Thinker - "Because of his leadership, a medium-size city has become a significant international and economic player, especially in fostering multilateral transpacific ties...There is no better strategic thinker in the world today. Two generations of American leaders have benefited from his counsel".[1][2]


Reactions of death of

instead of a huge section about Yew's death, as is typical on Wikipedia, here is an article. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_of_the_Death_of_Lee_Kuan_Yew

That article might be merged with a death article if it becomes noteworthy that he was killed, as that's what he wanted. He didn't want to live but wanted the plug pulled so that he would die....a common reaction when someone is ill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reactions Many Many (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Obvious Merge -- Kndimov (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Obvious Merge Seconded Zhanzhao (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Obvious Merge Thirded. Rothorpe (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC). Too big. Rothorpe (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Obvious merge Fourthed. -- Alarics (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Obvious Not Merge. Shouldn't article develop for two weeks then decide, not kill it. The man just died, no need for two deaths.
Opposed Merge Lee Kuan Yew's death is mentioned in the same breath as Nelson Mandela and should be accorded a similar article as Death of Nelson Mandela.121.218.68.44 (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Weak Oppose merge I'm for keeping the separate article if it grows even more lengthy. Optakeover(Talk) 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I redirected this one to the "Death of" page, as a duplicate. ansh666 03:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Death of

Someone started another 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lee_Kuan_Yew
Obvious Merge--70.190.111.213 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

oppose Many world leaders and other people issued statements. That is the reactions article. The funeral and how his death will affect the country and the world is the death article. How it affects the world is an important aspect that most wikipedians have no idea how to write it. Where are the smart ones? Disclaimer: I am somewhat dumb, but only a little dumb.Tough sailor ouch (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This from a editor that began editing wiki just today--70.190.111.213 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
actually this editor seems very adept with wiki gaming the system and at making unsourced addtions - seems like a case of sockpuppetry to me--70.190.111.213 (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge it, his death is not notable enough for a separate article. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

Lee Kuan Yew's wife, Kwa Geok Choo, has her Year Of Birth wrongly stated on the table of content. Please change from 1950 to 1920.

Not done: I assume you mean in the infobox. When it says (1950-2010), it does not refer to her birth year/death, it refers to the period of time they were married. Cannolis (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

So Lee480 made the following edits giving the reason, which I have pointed out the fallacies [1]: He said other countries succeeded as well, I said that only Lee did it in a single leadership. [2]: He said Lee wasn't the only person who developed SG, I explained that that was why the word "leader" was used, cos he lead a team. [3] And finally, he compared it to Japan ruling party, but thats a party, not a leader (it went though many leadership changes) so its an Apple-Orange comparison. Sorry made a mistake in my edit summary but the rationale is exactly the same.

And since he is asking for a reference, here it is, "only known leader to bring an entire country from third-world to first-world status in a single generation." Previously was a word-for-word, but nothing some copy-editing cannot fix - which I just did.

I am well aware I am risking 3rrr with my 3 reverts, but its obvious that Lee480 just seems have an issue with the wording being the way it was, jumping from one defense to another to justify the very same revert which shouldn't be the case. He's not even re-wording it to fit his given reasons. Now that I've provided a reference as he requested, that should close the case. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Edited response:

In accordance to Wikipedia Policy (WP:Verifiability), Nairaland as clearly stated on the header, a forum, hence not a reliable source.

Again, this clear shows lack of contextual knowledge of world events outside Singapore. It is a wrong assumption I was referencing to Japan's monarchy.

Advanced economies like Taiwan have been ruled by a single, famous ruler named Chiang Kai-shek. His party, the Kuomintang, has ruled Taiwan since 1928 and pass the millennium.[3] When the KMT was still the Junta, he was the Chairman of the Nationalist Government of China and the National Military Council from 1928-1946. When Taiwan is slowly turning into civilian government, he was head of state from 1940s till 1975. That's a solid 47 years in power. As quoted in Chiang's article, "(he) served as the leader of the Republic of China between 1928 and 1975." You do not need me to tell you Taiwan's progress from 3rd to 1st world.

And about Japan. It a bit weird that you assume I was referring to the monarch. Perhaps you may think I'm some goon-doo, but nope, I'm not. An easy search shows that LDP party ruled Japan from 1956 till 1933.[4]


The Taiwan_Miracle, clearly shows that Mr Lee, isn't the only person who turned a country to first world. Chiang Kai-shek did so too.

In accordance to WP:Neutral_point_of_view, with provisions from WP:ASSERT, which requires editors to "avoid stating opinions". It's your opinion that Mr Lee brought Singapore to 1st World. But factually, as cited in the above, no. Hence, pursuant to both policies, I will leave this statement as neutral.

However, if you can disprove that Chiang Kai-shek did not rule Taiwan from 47 years, use the proper citations to substantiate it. But as someone who is pursuing History, I highly doubt you can disprove this.

Please do not undo the edit as accordance to the Wikipedia's Policies. No edits are higher than those.

If you are feeling hurt, you can make use of the process of WP:Mediation, who will make the final decision, based on facts and not opinions.

While I respect Mr Lee and credit him from what's Singapore is today, this is not Singapore's MSM. This is Wikipedia. Only neutral and verified facts prevail.

Cheers. And stop shopping for facts.

RIP Father of Singapore.

Note the latest edits, I already corrected myself on Japan before you raised it up. Still same reault though. A party is not a person. No need to shop for facts when a quick google can turn up similar links. Chiang Kai Shek is indeed remarkable as well. But the statement in question mentions 3 points: 1) the only leader 2) to bring a single country from 3rd world to first 3) in a single generation. Though The first 2 is often prescribed to Chiang, the third is not. And in case you did not realise it, I was not the one who wrote that line you seem to take affront to, I merely reverted what I saw as an editor who keeps revertingchange the line, with each reason being different from the last. That rings alarm bells that you are against that line, not for a reason, but for any reason. Anyways I am editing on the go, but a quick google gives lots of sourcs attributing that line, if you are unhappy with the one provided, here's another [4]. I am sure you can similarly find this common description of LKY if you had even bothered to search, unless you wish not to. He has a reputation of being known as thus. What can we do? Cheers :) Zhanzhao (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


Firstly, all the reasons I gave were valid points. And instead of doing low-blows of asking why am against that statement, you're not even rebutting my argument that the lines are against Wikipedia's policies. Regardless, there's nothing I've against that line, except it may have contravene WP:ASSERT. The alternative source you gave is a clearly a copy and paste of the exact sentence here, since, according to the time-stamp it first appeared here. A simple Google search can show.
The definition of "in a single generation" is vague. Oxford put it as 30 years. Nevertheless, the sentence should be left neutral due to lacking valid sources. (Don't give sources as that blatantly copy and paste from here).
If the article is undone yet again, I will send this dispute for meditation as it may have had contravened WP:Neutral_point_of_view, WP:ASSERT, Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously its a copy and paste, since I am saying that this source can be a suitable replacement for the existing one in the main article. Why should not use it? You mean to say anything introduced in Talk cannot be used in the main article space? I'm seriously not getting you. o_O
Its not up to us to debate the wording of "one generation", we only reflect what the sources says. As pewr my edit, I put it forth as a "description", akin to a quote. To change a quote just because we do not like it would be WP:OPINION and WP:OR. Since I already re-edited it to say that Lee is described as such a character ,which follows conventional writing style here of attributing it instead of stating it as a fact. But since you are against that as well, let me do you the favour or throwing it to mediation. Hows Third Opinion sound?
Cheers.
Hi i wrote the sentences in question. Its not my original opinion and a reference to the NBC program was provided, which everyone may hv missed
- "Lagacy of Lee Kuan Yew, 1923-2015". Meet the Press. 23 March 2015. CNBC. CNBC Asia. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)
We have to assume that news organisations have more resources for their research. You may wish to send them a query if you hv doubts. As an occasional contributor I rather spend time on new content. ~~
One generation looks to be up to 30 yrs --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Familial_generation


Zhanzhao (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mediation filed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McCarthy, Terry (23 August 1999). "Asians of the Century: A Tale of Titans". Time.
  2. ^ Kissinger, Henry (29 April 2010). "The 2010 TIME 100". Time.
  3. ^ "List_of_leaders_of_the_Kuomintang".
  4. ^ "List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Japan".

Lee as a Peranakan

Is Lonely Planet the best reference for this? Please provide better and more credible sources than a travel guidebooks for foreigners.DORC (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please, people, if you add a reference, also add in the page number. DORC (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
By far the most controversial aspect of Mr Lee lies in his belief in eugenics. Some people ought to mention this under the section "Controversies". DORC (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

what is a self-reliant government?

Meant to be a concise description.. a govt without external debt, reliant on balanced budgets n savings in good times. Google "self-reliant government debt" But I agree its not that obvious Wrigleygum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Keen to bring this up to GA status (or even higher)?

This is a level-4 vital article because Lee Kuan Yew was among the most influential Asian politicians of the 20th century. As a Singaporean Wikipedian, I believe that the best tribute to him would be bringing his biography to GA status, or even making this the Main Page FA for 9 August (Singapore's 50th National Day). Although the article is already in good condition, the research and polishing needed are too much for me to tackle alone, so I am looking for other editors to collaborate with. Are you keen? This would also help counter systemic bias. --Hildanknight (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article deserves to be GA status. However I have a few suggestions: 1) The article is at present excessively gushing. Since Wikipedia endorses NPOV, this article will have greater credibility if it sounds more balanced. 2) Few editors seem to have read his memoirs or books; 3) Some of the references are lacking in page number citation. 220.255.1.82 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually for pt 1, its in the style of writing. I.e. Instead of " He was a visionay leader", it would be better written as "he was recognized as a visionary leader" with a source attribution which will help a lot with reducing the "gushing" feel.Zhanzhao (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The older version seems better. But the most important thing will be to read in depth his memoirs and other writings. I can add a few pointers since I've been watching coverage from foreign cable channels (most notably Phoenix TV) about his death and influence. But I really can't say I'm expert enough to revamp this article. DORC (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Turns out Mr Lee had suffered from Parkinson's Disease for three years, according to his daughter. DORC (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring mainly to the lead I renewed?. If so, how is previous version better?
Can you list the points here, esp those you think are too "gushing" - we can start discussing.. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi I'm very happy to see this thread.
This is my small contribution and tribute to his memories :(
But its difficult for me to spent a lot of time here and I'm afraid it will slowly revert to a depressing state again. Lets make it GA together and hope it can persist. To be honest, and from previous experience, I have my doubts because there are so many more detractors.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrigleygum (talk • contribs) 10:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The thing about wikipedia is that it still all relies on reliable sourcing. So granted that there are articles on both sides for or against him from commentators against the world, but at least sites like TRS (thrown to RSN many, many times and thrown out as it had no editorial control since its citizenship journalism), random facebook detractors, and personal blogs will not find traction here since these are all not reliable sources. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yea I get that, and we'd spent a lot more time defending edits than its worth
And I see that you spend considerable time going thru mediation so tks. I agree with your pts btw, but definition of "a single (one) generation" is not that vague in normal use.
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Familial_generation
About your previous comments, I thought about it a lot the past week and covered all the import pts in 5 para that a casual reader can digest. Left out much more in my own notes.
The phrase "He was recognized as" is also used in the first para and might seem repetitive. I like being concise..but I'm open. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Chinese name hatnote

I think we should add a Template:Chinese name hatnote (or one more appropriate to a Chinese Singaporean if such a thing exists) to emphasize that the surname is Lee. I've seen people confused by this. 109.147.41.153 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07Talk 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Splitting "Cultural depictions of LKY" into a separate article

Rationale: the section is long and trivia in nature. What do others think? DORC (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the proclaimation that Mr Lee was the only person in the world that brought a country to 1st world in a single generation.

It seems like (at least 2) users are assertive with the statement as stated above. I actually asked for meditation but was advised to go on for a smaller resolution centre like third party view etc. Wrigleygum's source that CNBC stated the above statement in the video showmight (before strong responses from both) be in doubt. The Asia version is a re-telecast of the American version and all the episodes are available freely here: http://www.nbc.com/meet-the-press. Even if somehow I missed the video saying that statement, again, the statement is flimsy. The next logical step is to use the third party view system as clearly it's a standstill for me and both of you and seen in the previous discussion in this talk page. But for now, I won't remove the statement as it will be added back by both users. If I've the time all day, I will remove it, but unfortunately I dont. And just to add on, the previous revision before Mr Lee's death is more WP:NPOV, compared to the current stated, where most of the contents were added by Wrigleygum. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 March 2015

- I appreciate your restraint and writing here, but why should a "third party view system" be a standstill? By third party, I assume you mean myself being the third viewer of this tv program. You can watch it or email/call them to clarify. From your edits, you might actually be in Singapore and a local call away - CNBC has its asia HQ right here. I saw the programming around noon, but you need to subscribe to starhub cable and it could be just asia programming.
- Abt the other edit "high intelligence", I assume you hv now read the citations and confirm its stated. If you were objective, you could hv say, removed "high" or just place "citation needed" placeholder. Its almost impossible for singaporeans to not know he is at least..smart.
Btw, the most common descriptions you get on lky - are versions of incorruptible, intellect, visionary, pragmatic.. Some over the top ones I saw are - "razor sharp intellect", "famed intellect" "smartest politician". The thing I agree is, too much hyperbole is bad, so my versions are more restrainted. "High intelligence" is the only one with extra emphasis, because he is so. If you disagree, just discuss abt it, its not like Lee needs one more superlative or he'll get up again to protest.
- Previous revision has much less details, so its much more tolerable to you, I guess
- Do list all your pts here so we can discuss, instead of all of us brooding over it, and of couse its much better than delete/undo wholesale.. But I am confident there is citation for everything I wrote, so if you can be specific, its just a matter of time and more work. Further, keep in mind, if we have to cite every sentence, it can get unweildy and very few people read them anyway.
- Lastly, looking at your moniker, I do hope its not because you are one of his persistent critics.. because the man has done so much more good things for this country than bad. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(UTC)

Indeed. Strong claims require strong sources, and I'm not sure an unnamed pundit in a TV talk show episode whose existence and content apparently cannot be verified online would satisfy that requirement. Wrigleygum, since you reinserted that citation, could you please provide the exact quote from that reference on which the statement is based on, and let us know who uttered it (see also WP:WEASEL)?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- "only leader known to bring an entire country from Third World to First World status in a single generation"
Its pretty much what's stated above, because I wrote it down when I first heard it; "single" may be "one"
If you watch CNBC, you know there are a number of anchors and guests who often alternate very quickly, but I just searched and quite certain Sri Jegarajah is one of the anchors who reported it; I heard it a couple more times for the same program slot before switching channel. The same news is repeated throughout the day of course.
If we can confirm TV news source in this way, it might set a precedent, so lets do it. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoever said what in the TV programme, I don't think a statement like this rises to the status of hard fact. It is an assertion by one person. There might be grounds for mentioning it if the person who said it was especially notable, but that does not look to be the case here. -- Alarics (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I get that, but its not a pundit, it was the anchors reading from the teleprompter. I heard it a couple of times. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think "anchor of some random US TV show reading from a teleprompter" counts as a WP:RS. -- Alarics (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Didn't realise the discussion was still continuing here since it was brought to DRN. I'll just copy my response from there, here. Sorry for the repeat
The point about LKY being "1) the only person to have 2) transformed the nation from 3rd world to 1st in 3) a single generation" can be broken down into a 3 parts.
2) and 3) come out so common that I don't even know why there is an argument about this. Just recently at the funeral, one of the US senators said just that [5]. Granted that was a Singapore website reporting it, but unless you say the site is making up the quote, you can't argue with that. Many here [6][7].
The debate about what constitutes a generation is not up to us to decide. As Lee480 previously acknowledged, there are various definitions. What is undeniable is that this "one generation" description is used so often in reports around the world to describe LKY's accomplishment, that there is no need to define what a generation is. The sources says it as such, and it is not up to us to question why the sources used that word.
As for counterpoint of other people/parties having done the same, if some party did it, that does not disqualify LKY being the only one since you are comparing a party to a person. More importantly, those other leaders and parties that Lee480 used as rebuttals haven't been described as having fulfilled pts 2 and 3 of turning a third world country into a first in one generation. Unless Lee480 can show a source that explicitly describes another single person that fulfilled 2 and 3, he is just synthesizing his argument as he goes along. For example, I would not use this link to support the statement, since it only vaguely describes a "transformation" (too vague, not "third world to first"), even though it meets the "one generation" criteria.
The only arguable point would be the "only person/leader" arguement. I put forth 2 links as evidence, but they were rejected by Lee480 since he said the writer cut/pasted from wikipedia. Again this goes back to the point that if the source used the quote, and its a reliable source, its not up to us to decide that just because they use information from wikipedia, they are not credible. Per WP:CIRC, the sources practiced editorial control, and if they think that Wikipedia is reliable for that article, its allowed. Which is the case, as it was not a pure mirror of wiki's content, the authors of the articles I quoted had taken phrases here and there, but have rearranged it for the narrative they were writing.
Or, we can just write that LKY is "recognized"/"described" for this accomplishment. Putting it this way makes it not a full statement of fact, but acknowledges that he is known for this.
This actually relates to the points that Lee480 brought up about NPOV. A lot of the positive descriptions about Lee can actually qualified by adding a "LKY was known for", "LKY was described as", "XXX article described Lee as" etc. All the attributes prescribed to LKY can actually be found in publication and sources not from within Singapore media. Would really mess up the flow of the article though. And even then, that should not mean that local media sources cannot be used. Its just a matter of striking a balance in source and writing. Lets keep this work in progress going. I'm keeping a hands off on all articles at the moment for personal reasons, but keep the good work and discussions going. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I will present my argument later today, I've work to do Now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual error

I have removed "and is credited with bringing Singapore from Third World to First World status in a single generation", it is a factual error. There is no meaning involved in these terms since 1991, when Cold War ended. These should not be used for describing the progress, development, economy of a country, even if we are living in the world before 1991. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources often mistake, and especially when it concerns this widespread misconception that is still taught everywhere but there is no official existence of these terms. Singapore joined Non-aligned movement(actual term for "third world") in 1970. Is there any source, claiming that Singapore was an ally of the United States and the United Kingdom after 1970?("first world") OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @OccultZone: Apparently you consider yourself more knowledgeable than reliable sources? Last I checked, the Third World article is not the same article as Non-Aligned Movement. More and more reliable sources [8] [9] [10] [11] back my claim. Wikipedia simply reflects what reliable sources write, and they write that Lee guided his country to emerge from the status of a third-world country to a first-world nation within a single generation. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Article is not same? Yes it is not but "third world" meant for Non-aligned movement. Sources that you have named clearly follow the stererotype and they don't describe the definition of these terms and how they are coherent in this context. Do they ever even use "second world"? They don't. I find it pretty undue as well, not only because the statement is riddled with faults, but also because First world is no way better or worse than Third world in its own virtue. If a statement, likely follows a different conclusion, it should be omitted. Since Singapore joined Non-aligned movement in 1967[12] it is no more a first world. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @OccultZone: Two points. Firstly, it is possible that Singapore became first world after 1970. The sources do not say when it happened, but the sources do say it happened. Secondly, while you do have a source saying Singapore joined Non-aligned movement in 1970, you have no source saying it is no more a first world because of such. That is WP:OR. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It is impossible to be an ally of Non-aligned movement and the United Kingdom, the United States at once. Whoever joins this movement has to refrain from their previous official status. Now you got it? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Since there is problem within the statement, I think that it should be still kept removed from the lead, you can add this statement elsewhere on the article and attribute properly.. "Upon his death a number of sources regarded his efforts as."...." .." OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple reliable sources that attribute LKY with bringing it from "third world to first in a single generation". If we narrow it down to just "third world to first", even more so. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, and as Starship pointed out, it is not up to us to decide whether what the reliable sourceS (plural) are true or not, as long as a majority of the reliable sources agree on it. The whole WP:NOTTRUTH article clearly explains that our goal is about verifiability, not truth. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claim would require further examination and description by those same reliable sources, not just one sentence that is contrary. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • LOL no, it does not require further examination and description by those same reliable sources. It just requires multiple high-quality sources. I listed 5 above already. Here's more. [13] [14] It's been even written in books. [15] [16] [17] [18] Your opposition based on WP:REDFLAG is now moot. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It does, if you can find any other country or even just Singapore, that they have the exceptional possibility of being an ally of First world as well as Third world at the same time, then I would refrain from arguing over this WP:REDFLAG. Your source is basing its definition after talking about the GDP of Singapore, which was never a criteria of being regarded as First world. Read my first message on here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm done with arguing with you. Whether you accept my arguments or not, you are not above reliable sources, and I have provided seven media articles and four books above. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for arguing in a civil way. Restored the text for now since you insist. Point was to register this objection, we shall continue it later. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with OccultZone, the use of the phrase "from third world to first world" is misleading to readers as both terms are incoherent with each other to the extent that the so-called "achievement" is meaningless. As an analogy, this is not so different from getting a Guinness World record for making the world's longest bun containing cockles inside. I tried to delete this paragraph but was denied 3 times. This article is not so much different from Straits Times propaganda bull crap and serve the readers no justice. Sandy write (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely it is obvious that in this context "third world" means economically poor and underdeveloped, while "first world" means with a high level of development and GDP on a par with North America and Western Europe,etc. -- Alarics (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Alarics, you just proved my point. According to your definition of "third world", Singapore does not qualify as economically poor or underdeveloped. If you have bothered to research into the GDP data in 1965 such as this [19] or this [20], it would be very clear that Singapore is not that poor or underdeveloped compared to the rest of the world. Sandy write (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sandy write, That's why the wording is very specific in that its just a description that's widely attributed about him. Its not written as a pure statement of fact. Many sources have used this line to describe him, especially after his death where quite a few world leaders/representatives described him similarly as well. Off-hand I can recall at least Modi of India and Kissinger. By your usage of "Straits Times propaganda bull crap" in the line above, you seem to have a certain bias on the subject - note that the sources given did not even come from Straits Times. Please try to stay NPOV when editing, thanks. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zhanzhao, please do not lecture me on what NPOV is about. Intellectual dishonesty is something I do not want to talk about. This is Wikipedia and factual errors, even if well sourced, should not be promoted. Sandy write (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sabhaktikamanuruddha

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabhaktikamanuruddha. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Death?

I don't think he has died, do we have a RS? -sarvajna (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It was reverted -sarvajna (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, he did die........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reactions Many Many (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
How is it 'sadly'? It's like Hitler dying. The moment should be celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.75.87 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Done I think it was just a Death hoax. Added the details today, with the conclusion of the stern warning sent out by the AGC --Never stop exploring (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean it should be 'celebrated'? Like Hitler dying, which is a good thing? Singapore's government won't be very happy about you saying such things... Of course, if you mean it is like just the 'right time' for him to die as it is SG50, then it's fine. --Xiurobert (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this sentence really appropriate for Wikipedia?

(From the intro): "Lee Kuan Yew was a visionary leader, incorruptible, non-ideological and of high intelligence." This sentence seems extremely biased and opinionated, and I feel like it is not, regardless of whether the majority of Wikipedia users agree with it, appropriate for Wikipedia. --69.126.210.25 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this. There is a great amount of propaganda surrounding this character, and Wikipedia should be the place where people can find an unbiased account of him, not where they get fed even more propaganda. Mike382 (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No. I tagged the page with peacock because this and much of the rest of the content in this article use peacock terms, violating the NPOV guidelines. Kelly Sater 02:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khsater (talk • contribs)
I made a list of a few of the very biased statements in the intro:
"Lee Kuan Yew was a visionary leader, incorruptible, non-ideological and of high intelligence."
"Besides exercising, eating and living simply, his noted work-discipline was best exemplified by his continued daily learning of Mandarin by personal tutors up to age 90" (not sure if this should go in the intro even if the tone is fixed)
"Lee was a captivating orator"
"Lee is widely admired." (intro) (seriously?)
"Owing to his strategic and astute geopolitical analysis, many world leaders sought his views, particularly on Asian affairs." ("astute" seems like far too strong language)
"Others, especially developing nations around the world, aspired to emulate his leadership and success on economic developments." (intro) (the tone of this sentence seems to praise him way too much)
"Lee's memoirs, The Singapore Story and From Third World to First continues to inspire many globally, having been translated into more than a dozen languages" (intro) (the tone here seems to praise him way too much) I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia editing so I'm not too sure how editing protected articles work, so can someone fix some of these problematic statements?--69.126.210.25 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Much of the article is written in narrative form as well. For example: "On one fearful occasion that could have change the course of Singapore's history, Lee was asked by a Japanese guard to join a group of segregated Chinese men."
This is not a biography, people, this is an encyclopedic entry. Kelly Sater 02:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khsater (talk • contribs)
Actually some parts from the last edit by StainlessSteelScorpion can be remain. The part which states that he spoke 3 languages so he could communicate with the major races is actually factual, just needs to be toned down to be less "gushing". Also this following whole chunk are indeed factual and well referenced, just needs a slight re-write:
President Obama called him a "true giant of history". On his death, Prime Minister Modi declared a national day of mourning in India. Australia and New Zealand passed parliamentary motions to mourn Lee's passing; Prime Minister Prime Minister Abbott said Lee's advice spurred Australia at a critical time in its history.[1] Lee was twice named one of Time's Most Influential people - of the 20th Century in 1999, and of the new decade in 2010. Owing to his strategic and astute geopolitical analysis, many world leaders sought his views, particularly on Asian affairs. Others, especially developing nations around the world, aspired to emulate his leadership and success on economic developments. Lee's achievements had a profound effect on China's leadership, who made a major effort, first initiated by Deng Xiaoping, to emulate his policies of rapid economic growth, entrepreneurship, subtle suppression of dissent, and most recently, a massive anti-corruption campaign. [2]
Even if its not in the lede, maybe some subsection on how LKY was viewed by the world? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was well-sourced but narrative in form and not encyclopedic in nature. It also did not belong in the introduction, and the entire piece needed to be rewritten. While it is not blatantly wrong, it is certainly subversive propaganda that could misinform a person seeking an unbiased perspective. There is a thin line between partial and impartial, and it is clearly seen in the OP's edit comment that he reveres Mr. Lew. As it is, there are already far too many sections in this article that makes it difficult to browse. Serious effort needs to be undertaken to reorganize and reclassify the information. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest striking this article off as level 4 until NPOV, narrative nature and it being cluttered are fixed. I personally feel that the article before his death was more balanced, was until Wrigleygum started added information to it till the current state today. Maybe editors can take reference from the past version of this article before his demise, when the article was then awarded the level 4 status and where it's more neutral and less narrative in nature. Cheers.

Personally, I think amending the lead paragraphs can wait. We'll have to add references to the main article (lots of page numbers are missing), and read his memoirs and books to get a better understanding on how he governed the country. I've just reserved his memoirs on the library, but I'm #20 in the queue. But I agree that statements such as "Lee Kuan Yew was a visionary leader, incorruptible, non-ideological and of high intelligence." are vague and are peacock terms. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery. DORC (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that "amending the lead paragraphs can wait", and I have trimmed some more of the WP:PEACOCK gush. -- Alarics (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Reliable sources for him holding the post of Tanjong Pagar MP until his death are missing. None of the three sources listed seems to have mentioned that. Could someone add a reliable source? I have also trimmed some details which I find unnecessary for a lead. Lead paragraphs are meant to guide reading and be succinct. I don't think it's terribly important to mention he won the Whitlock Prize, or that the LKY School of Policy has alumni from 80 countries. DORC (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I Think, the page is already appropriate for Wikipedia... Can anyone remove the template? Or if there's something wrong, tell me, so that I'll fix it Jason Sudana (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)



Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because Lee Kuan Yew is the Founding Father of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warderwalk (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Warderwalk: You're the one who added that speedy deletion tag; why are you contesting your own deletion? -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lee Kuan Yew. 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) 07:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lee Kuan Yew. 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) 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lee Kuan Yew. 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) 06:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Lee Kuan Yew. 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) 18:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Right Honourable title

Why is there a repeated adding of the Right Honourable title for Lee Kuan Yew? Singapore does not use the Right Honourable title at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2076:9A:DDFE:EEC2:181C:EC3D (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Creation of Political positions of Lee Kuan Yew page

Hello, I have created the Political positions of Lee Kuan Yew in order to include more information about Lee's personal political views. I have included new information that wasn't present in the main article about Lee's views towards the jury system, his political philosophy, and on Wikileaks, and I have moved some of the more peripheral paragraphs in the main article there. I.E., I have transferred two paragraphs from specific interviews on LGBT rights to the other page and a minor part on Lee's views towards population planning.

Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Correction on education

Hi, I've made a minor correction relating to the grades he received when he graduated from Cambridge. The entry reflected him as graduating with "double starred first class honours". This requires a starred-first in both Part I and Part II of the Law Tripos. He received a first class in Part I and a starred first (a.k.a. a first class with distinction) in Part II. We can therefore say (1) he graduated with starred first class honours, (2) he graduated with double first class honours, with a starred first in Part II, (3) he graduated with a double first class honours (though this is the least accurate of the three). Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Controversies and political positions

Currently, the positions/viewpoints of Lee Kuan Yew are roughly divided into two sections, "Decisions and policies" (a subsection of "Prime Minister, post-independence (1965–1990)") and "Controversies". As a first point, having a Controversies section seems to run afoul of WP:CSECTION, so that section header is not optimal. Secondly, both sections are mixed in timeframe. I suspect the overall idea was to have the Decisions and policies subsection cover his positions while PM, and the Controversies section covers his positions after PM (although he was still in politics), but neither covers this distinction cleanly. The two obvious options I can see are to either a) better split between PM and post-PM views, or b) create one larger "Political views" section. a) has the advantage of keeping a chronological picture of his actions in office, but may duplicate information across sections. b) keeps topics in one cohesive section, but may lose some distinction as to which were the policies he acted on in office and which were just other thoughts. Perhaps there are other options, like keeping a dry record of policy actions in a Policies subsection (and making it a bit more chronological) and then expanding on the viewpoints behind these decisions in a later Views section? CMD (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I was going to change "Controversies" to "Political positions". In addition, inclusion of a separate subsection for the condo scandal would be undue weight considering it is not even considered a major issue by international media, being only brought up to highlight the one specific case. He remains not guilty of the charge even if the Singapore court system is compliant to the government, and would require substantial independent coverage to be considered notable. 38 Oxley Road would also not be considered a legacy... the section needs a massive revamp, and I would support option b) as his political views did not change before and after office. Seloloving (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Main photo

I am updating the main photo to a neater and clearer one, albeit from 1969. The existing photo has been in place since 2014, when the subject was alive. It made sense then as a representation of the subject because he was an elderly man. Now that he is no longer living, I think this photo from 1969 is a better representation of the subject. It is also clearer, less pixelated, and released under a public domain licence. Happy to discuss further. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's crisp and photographed much earlier than the previous one, which fits better given the subject is now deceased. My main complaint, at least what stands out is two problems: (1) the subject's face is to the side of the photograph, the ear being awkwardly positioned in the centre, and (2) the subject is on an angle facing away from the camera. Ideally, at least going by what I've seen on other articles on public figures, it's best to have the subject's face in the centre and them facing at least somewhat towards the camera. Nonetheless, until a more ideal photograph is found, I do agree that since this one is from an earlier stage in the subject's adult life, it is more suitable given the context, and its quality is good. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely. Hopefully a better photograph will become available. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
New photo from Taiwan presidential office discussion
@Kohlrabi Pickle: I have found a better photo from the ROC Presidential Office released under CC BY 2.0, but have taken the liberty to greyscale the image myself. Do you think that would be better? Seloloving (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Seloloving Great! It's certainly an improvement on the previous, even if not the most flattering image. I don't know how greyscaling fits into Wikipedia's rules on images, but it's visually nicer at least. Thanks for putting it up! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest an earlier photograph if one is found with a permissible licence in the future. Looking at articles on other (albeit unrelated) statesmen such as Pierre Trudeau and Fidel Castro. Both respective articles use photographs taken earlier in the subject's life. I would say that (ideally) the photograph be no later than Lee's last term as prime minister in 1990, given his career as PM is what he is most known for. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@SchizoidNightmares: Yes, that would be the ideal case. The problem is there's no PD or CC photo of him in that earlier stage of life. The Singapore government has no open license for their works, and most photos taken of him by foreign governments are of bad quality. Singapore government photos will only expire 70 years after the date of publication, while photos taken after 1987 by private individuals 70 years after death of the photographer.
In any case, seeing as he served as a full minister (Minister Mentor until 2011 and his penultimate appointment before death), and the photo was taken while he was the MM, I think it will do for now. It can be shifted down into the body after a better photo is found. Seloloving (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

IP 61.8.239.66. Do note the photo you are trying to reinstate is a cropped and overly saturated photo from the United States archives. LKY is also not looking at the camera compared to this photo from the ROC archives. Even so, a coloured version exists as I greyscaled it manually. You may wish to propose using the coloured version instead, of which I shall have no problems.

In addition, Kohlrabi Pickle has agreed to the new photo which I had uploaded, see this reply after mine on 12 March 2021, which implies consensus on the new photo. Seloloving (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC).

I said he is missing a tooth in this photo you like.. Put BOTH photos here side-by-side and get the feedback from more editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.239.66 (talk)
You may start a discussion if you wish, to get a new consensus for the previous photo. I feel the value of the new photo of him staring straight at the camera outweighs the issue of the missing tooth and do not see any merit to reinstating the older photo. If you wish to reinstate it, you may kindly begin a new discussion below. Seloloving (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, I am in favour of the greyscaled image. Though of course I would be thrilled if we had a better photograph than either of these two. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Grey-scaled version that replaces the oversaturated photo that was on the page for a long time
Oversaturated photo that was on the page for a long time
Comparison of images for infobox.
Left: Grey-scaled version that replaces the oversaturated photo that was on the page for a long time.
Right:Oversaturated photo that was on the page for a long time
Just to entertain IP's request for side by side comparison, here you go.
And my preference is the grey-scaled version. Despite the teeth, or lackof (I didn't notice until IP editor brought it up), him looking at the camera works better for the article than him not looking at the camera. – robertsky (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Of the two images in the multi-image here, I also support the image looking into the camera. (Also good that the body is angled from the right, which works well with the infobox placement.) Not sure why teeth presence or absence is that important. CMD (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, may I ask how this image is? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%80_%D0%9B%D0%B8_%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%AE_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8E_%D0%9E%D0%AD%D0%97.jpg. Is it just okay--Manwë986 (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

If given a choice, I would say the "oversaturated original" photograph that was "on the page for a long time" is best out of all the options. The present one is far too recent in the subject's life (only around 4 years before his passing). It isn't a common practice on biographical articles of deceased persons to include a photograph of them far after the period that they were most historically known for. Since there is a severe lack of available earlier photographs of LKY, I would say opting for the one I mentioned is best. Despite the subject not looking directly at the camera in the photograph (which is not necessarily a requirement), the photograph is the best one (in terms of quality) of him available for the article. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point but that problem isn't solved by switching the photograph on the left for the one on the right, because he looks pretty much the same in them. He did look very different when he was Prime Minister. I've tried to find a photograph from then, without success. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Would you be able to email the PAP for a photo of LKY? I have tried going through the US and New Zealand archives, as well as pouring over all the state visits of him to countries with copyright exemption for government works (which was how I found the Taiwan one). I can't believe there's not a single decent photo of him during his prime. Surely someone would have asked him to pose for a good shot, especially the New Zealand one where he's looking off to the side.
It really doesn't help that most photos on the National Archives of Singapore website are considered "republished", with their copyright now extending 70 years after their republication instead of the original date they were taken, meaning they will expire only in the 2080s or 90s. That's the quirk in Singapore's copyright law, where even maps from the 1800s "republished" in the 2000s result in their copyright now expiring 70 years after republication. Seloloving (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Seloloving I reached out to LHL's press secretary several weeks ago, and she told me she would ask LKY's former press secretary. She's been polite but unhelpful, so I'm not expecting to hear back, sadly. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not easy to find one. I mean, even the main photo of Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Nathan and Mdm. Halimah, where they are not looking at the camera. --Manwë986 (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion between Manwë986 and Seloloving

What about this one:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Lee_Kuan_Yew_cropped.jpg? This one also have him looking at the camera, just like the Russian photo I suggested. If only, I could crop the the Russian photo. Also, how about him meeting Xi Jinping, who was vice chairman at that time?--Manwë986 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Still opposed to both. In my opinion, the one on the page is dignified enough and of an appropriate resolution compared to this or the Russian one. His look between 2002 and 2011 does not differ much to warrant revert to the saturated version. A replacement should I propose only be either a) a younger age looking into the camera or b) a higher resolution version of an elderly man. We can also email the government for a better photo, or wait another 10 years for the Malaysian archives to open up, where photos expire after 50 years, which would cover the period between 1960 and 1980. Seloloving (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

We'll let the Singaporean admins to decide. And we need a coloured version, there's a coloured version of 2011 image which was used in main photo. We shouldn't need to care about whether he was looking at the camera or not, or the image of whether he was at his prime or not. These are not really the options. I think we should take User:SchizoidNightmares's suggestion about that photo which was on the page for a long time, even before 2010.--Manwë986 (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not only for Singaporeans exclusively, which I am. The prevailing consensus is that the present photo is fine over the previous amongst other editors. If you wish to overwrite this consensus, hold a new vote below. At present robertsky, Chipmunkdavis, me and Kohlrabi Pickle are for the present photo which is four votes to one against SchizoidNightmares. If you wish to overwrite this consensus, hold a second vote with the options you desire. The present photo stays until a new consensus is formed, or if no obvious new consensus is formed. Seloloving (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Then please email to the government for a better photo. It would be where he's an elderly man. And the greyscale versions and whether him looking at camera or not are not necessary. Or we can use this coloured version, it's better than nothing since you said you have no problems of it. And if we held a vote, how long will it take?--Manwë986 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It could take a few days, or a week, or even two. It depends on the response of other users, the options available, and whether a new obvious choice can replace the previous consensus. A coloured version is also not as necessary as you might think. Even if we obtain the younger photo of him, it will likely be grayscaled regardless. Seloloving (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

What about this one: coloured version? It's better than nothing since you said you shall have no problems of it. And it will be better if we obtain the elderly photo of him--Manwë986 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no problems with it. However, as a previous editor (robertsky) has expressed preference for the greyscaled version, and the previous concensus was for the grayscale version, you should hold an entirely new vote. In addition, please do not go around asking other editors to vote the way you did at the IP's page, as it may be seen as WP:CANVASSING, which is not allowed. A notification to other users should be neutrally worded and sent to all concerned editors, those in favour and opposing. If they wish to vote, they will turn up. To avoid stretching out this page further, I suggest you find the time to organise the contents for a vote in the new section. If you have any questions on how to word the request neutrally or format the proposal, you may message me on my talkpage. Seloloving (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Manwë986, as I have said. I myself have no problem with the coloured version. However, my opinion does not overwrite the consensus above where the greyscale version was deemed the one to use over the coloured version and saturated version. Please seek a new consensus for the coloured version. Seloloving (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Manwë986's insistence, I am going to start a vote for the main photo as quicken the process. I am proposing three photos for this, anyone is welcome to add on to the list, but it's not preferred as it would reduce the chances of gaining a consensus. While I am aware votes do not usually decide the decision on Wikipedia, in this case it would serve as the overall gauge for the community. Seloloving (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Option 1
    Option 1
  • Option 2
    Option 2
  • Option 3
    Option 3
  • Option 3: per photo is dignified enough, even if greyscaled, and I actually feel it's better than the coloured version. His looks between 2002 and 2011 does not differ much to use the previous version where he's not looking into the camera, and in my opinion is actually less dignified to the subject. Seloloving (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Respectfully, it would be a more fruitful use of time for those who want the photo changed to find a better photo. This is splitting hairs. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Gerald R Ford Presidential Library

These are some raw film of LKY (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) from the Ford Presidential Library. There are much more photos but I have filtered them out for the essentials. The photos themselves are copyright free per this file covering all the photos taken that day, but to obtain the higher resolution shots, the fee of digitizing a single photo is 17 US dollars. Would anyone be interested? I would be willing to pay for one photo, but it's best we concur on the best option.

In addition, here's another PD photo I have extracted from the raw film of the United States Department of Defence, as well as the US archives. I think the second one is the best we can settle for, for a younger Lee without paying for it.

Seloloving (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Do not revert my edit !

Everyone has the right to edit ! Lim Zhi Hang (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss it below. We both have the right to edit, and are involved in an editing dispute and must discuss it. Seloloving (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain your insistence on reinstating the paragraph I have reverted numerous times? I have provided my opinion that the information is unnecessary as LKY was most commonly known as being prime minister, with his later appointments taking more of a mentoring role, and is hence unnecessary to be featured with such prominence. The information is also already covered in the fourth paragraph and does not need to be duplicated in the first. I would be interested to hear your reasoning to include the content in the lead.

In addition, "one of the greatest political leaders in Asia" is bordering on WP:UNDUE weight unless you can provide numerous reliable independent sources to back that assertion. At best, I have only found a list of tribute statements here, with the quote being attributed to Abe. While other leaders may have issued similar statements, their context ("legendary figure in Asia", "giant in history" and "giant in our region") differs slightly. I am not even sure if eulogy statements are considered a reliable source, and would prefer to use scholarly sources. Seloloving (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Being a "great leader" is inherently subjective. It may be arguable that sourced quotes could go into the body, but the limited space of the lead is much better served by providing some detail as to why Lee is considered to have been a "great leader", rather than mentioning epitaphs. CMD (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I will eventually add the sourced quotes in a revamped public image section, which will include both praises and critics of his rule, but as of now, I see no necessity to include it in the lead unless it can be reliably backed by numerous independent sources which are preferably not eulogies. Adding all the appointments (and dates!) is also extremely unnecessary as it simply adds too much clutter, when the information can already be found in the infobox. He didn't exactly do much as a SM and MM for the appointments to be featured in the first paragraph (not that the public is aware of, anyway). Seloloving (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a part on his personal religious belief that was removed

I think these are important things that were included before and now totally removed. Not even a scent of it. He stated on numerous occasions that he consider himself a "nominal Buddhist", whatever that means.

Is there a censorship attempt going on? SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the diff for that? I have not revamped anything on his personal life yet, and the version from 2 January does not have any phrase of "nominal Buddhist". His personal life section still features his claim to be a Buddhist quite prominently.
He identified as a Buddhist in name on several occasions[334] as well as a member of the Buddhist/Taoist community.[335][336] In his biography "One Man's View of the World", when asked if he would participate in Buddhist rituals, he replied, "Yes, I would. I go through the motions and the rituals. I am not a Christian. I am not a Taoist. I do not belong to any special sect.[337]
I doubt there has been any censorship attempt, and it may have been removed for some reason or another. Seloloving (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional note.

I have checked further and the phrase was removed on 14 November as part of a copyedit. His exact words were "nominally, I am a Buddhist", which has a very slight different meaning from "nominal Buddhist". The former phrase would imply he's a Buddhist, while "norminal Buddhist" sounds like a sect of Buddhism. So I would agree that the editor was correct in removing it.
I will eventually rewrite the entire section, as it is best not to cite Youtube video. If you are able to search for secondary scholarly sources, it would help a lot in my revamp of the page. Seloloving (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised that someone who's putting so much effort in revamping LKY page didn't at least take the initiative to Google his personal and religious beliefs. Beyond that youtube video, there were many other instances where he relates that he is a nominal Buddhist. The term "nominal Buddhist" was also used by SPH when they were writing his bibliography. And no it doesn't sound like a sect or some religious organisation to me. Besides, yes, the phrase was removed on 14 Nov but at least that editor kept the fact that he was a "Buddhist/Taoist", whereas you totally removed it. I think that's the issue that's becoming very clear here in your little revamping project, and that's whatever you disagree on, you just bulldoze through even if others have differing opinion and that's against the spirit of Wikipedia community ethos. SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not make unwarranted accusations. I did not remove anything about him being a nominal Buddhist, or even touched the personal life section on his religion yet, and I would like to request for you to retract the comment or provide evidence of a diff that I did. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, since the sentence of him being a "member of the Buddhist/Taoist community" is still in the article.
I only said I agreed with its removal as its present source is a Youtube video, and a SPH source is not cited. If you wish to include the term, please cite the SPH source and the page number. Seloloving (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Pinging for @Dawkin Verbier:, whom removed the phrase, and might be able to explain their reasons behind it to you better than I can. Seloloving (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@SecretSquirrel78: I have restored the phrase for you and added the source page, but won't touch the personal life section further as I plan to do it last, to include the birth of his children, second marriage ceremony with Kwa, and other personal stuff. If you wish to help me, it would be very much appreciated. Seloloving (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Censorship

@SecretSquirrel78: "Is there a censorship attempt going on?" I believe so. I also realized that Seloloving has omitted everything associating Lee Kuan Yew with Conservatism. Seriously? What do you think the ideology of the PAP and his policies were during his tenure? Lee Kuan Yew was one of the major figures behind this ideology in Asia during the 20th century/Cold War. He was even the one who first coined the term "Asian values", which is a conservative-centric idea relating as to how Asian countries should be run differently as compared to the West, stating that Asians and Westerners do not necessarily share the same ideals in what constitutes successful nation-building. His unique policies could definitely be considered as his own sub-ideology, but "Kuanyewism" is definitely still a part of Conservatism similar to what Reaganism or Thatcherism was. 114.23.214.121 (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I originally typed out a rebuttal, but then realised I am not going to dignify your accusation with a proper reply which has zero merit. Seloloving (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Australia, New Zealand pass parliamentary motions to mourn Lee Kuan Yew". Singapore: Channel NewsAsia. 26 March 2015.
  2. ^ "French edition of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs launched in Paris". The Straits Times. Singapore. 26 October 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Kuan_Yew/Archive_3&oldid=1034838269"