Jump to content

Talk:Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019

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

Proposed merge of Alex Tan into Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge; most editors argue that independent notability is established, or that other less notable events contribute to independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E, most reliable, non-biased coverage comes from his pages being banned under POFMA. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - :Alex Tan was actually notable for a few reasons and it extended beyond just POFMA.
It started with him being the youngest politician at that time to run in the general elections, and most importantly, running in a consituency contest directly head-on against the prime minister himself - even gaining the nickname "Suicide Squad". (I see quite a bit of writeup regarding his election activities had been taken out in the current form of the article). See an earlier version of the article here. After that, it was his involvement in a string of independent sites, for example infamously "The Real Singapore" (which has lead to editors being charged for falsifying news - covered outside Singapore as well as well as its shut down in 2015), which happened earlier than the timeline being discussed in the POFMA and is only briefly mentioned here. His infamy culminated in his involvement in false then retracted claims implicating the Singapore prime minister in the 1MDB scandal, the biggest embezzlement scandal to hit the region and [necessitated an official response by the Singapore’s High Commission in Malaysia, to the Malaysian people]. At that time the subject was practically a one-man-show running the later sites (wayback and archives show him signing off on all articles that were not re-posts). The facebook ban is the final chapter in a long running saga involving him before he faded into obscurity.
The subject is known for way more than just in relation to POFMA, and I don't see how a merger to this article would retain the contents of his political history or the details of the involvement in 1MDB without bloating it unnecessarily. ----Zhanzhao (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put on record that editors claiming to be the subject was actively involved in padding the page back when the subject was active in his activism. In recent times after the subject has stopped his activism, yet more new editor accounts again claiming to be him have been requesting to clean up or even delete the page to remove the more negatively reported aspects. My opinion is that these are indeed the subject and that after exploiting Wikipedia to "beef up his street cred", he now wants to put his activism days behind him at the expense of encyclopedic history and recording. My fear is that even if this merge is successful, he will return to this page to continue the whitewashing to attempt to get himself written out from here as well. Hopefully editors in the future will take note of suspicious activity - in the past he never self-identifies COI, only claiming to be the subject after being asked for reliable sources or references, to give weight to his posts without needing to provide the requested resources. ----Zhanzhao (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does the now-blocked Tan's socking and promotional editing have to do with this merge discussion? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I want it on record for future editors to watch out for suspicious editor activity. I did not yet even mention his "ink-barely-dried" ban for socking to own his page, but thanks for the reminder to bring it up. ----Zhanzhao (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds more like poisoning the well to me. It's obvious you're upset with Tan for trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, but that is beside the point of a merge discussion and we're not going to keep the article as "punishment". That's not how Wikipedia works. I should add I'll be sending the Tan article to AfD if the merge proposal fails. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about punishment. Its about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, all at the whim of a subject just because he wants to disappear from Wikipedia despite it being proper enclyclopedic entries. Hence my fear about him trying to whitewash this article as well. Your intention to send the article to AfD would just plays into that - that's exactly what his recent sock demanded as well if he could not own his page, and quoting him verbatim "You either delete the entire wikipedia entry or use the correct version I have submitted.". ----Zhanzhao (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what Tan wants done with the article, I care about adherence to our policies and guidelines. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, I don't care what Tan wants done with the article, I care about adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ----Zhanzhao (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - Tan's coverage outside of Singapore is very thin at best and all about his pages being blocked by the Singaporean government. Roughly 2/3 of the article about Tan is about his relationship to these otherwise notable events, but Notability is not inherited. The Article on Tan is a BLP1E and a COATRACK as it stands. Singaporean media (like the Straits Times) is all funded by the Government of Singapore and as Tan is a political dissident in direct conflict with that government, Singaporean media is unreliable for a Tan BLP. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's disingenous and misleading to use the blanket statement "Singaporean media (like the Straits Times) is all funded by the Government of Singapore". I.e Mothership, TheOnlineCitizen, and The Independent Singapore are not. And even where media is more closely tied to the government is involved, as the current state of the article stands now, its generally straight forward reporting of cause and effect. Either A does this, B happened, or quoting from politicians. ----Zhanzhao (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither disingenuous, nor misleading. As I've REPEATEDLY told you, and you refuse to acknowledge is what an inherently biased source says is irrelevant. The only argument to be made is whether the sources in question are considered reliable for a BLP, and they are NOT as the article subject is in direct conflict with the Singaporean government. No matter how many times you say they are just reporting "cause and effect", the sources cannot be used in a BLP. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was regarding your blanket statement that ""Singaporean media (like the Straits Times) is all funded by the Government of Singapore"", and ""Singaporean media is unreliable for a Tan BLP."" I already pointed out how teh government's sovereign investment fund invests in everything they thinks makes money, including Reuters, and MediaFactcheck's findings on ChannelNewsAsia. And just pointed out other Singapore media like Mothership, TheOnlineCitizen, and The Independent Singapore are not funded by the government. Its your blanket statement that all of them must be considered unreliable when covering this subject, that makes it disingenuous and misleading. ----Zhanzhao (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reporters Without Borders report on Singaporean media being controlled by the government [1]. What is disingenuous is claiming the Singaporean government's investment in "whatever they think makes money" (like Reuters which they obviously can't control), means they can't censor or control a domestic news source. You said on the Alex Tan talkpage that you were becoming "too personally involved" and implied you would be stepping back, so I'm not really sure why you're now here casting WP:ASPERSIONS. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 01:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was only pointing out the issues I had with that one blanket statement (and the gist of which) you keep repeating, and gave reasons and justfication why statement should not be take at face value. If you feel wronged and felt that I was casting WP:ASPERSIONS with regards to how I called out that statement, you're welcome to report me on that. Also, I was prepared to leave with my final words of caution for future editors to take note, but since you are addressing me, it's only polite to respond. ----Zhanzhao (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC): Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Hello! Please give me some time to review this article. Thank you![reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Minor concerns: Before I move on to the major problem with the article, let me first list out some other minor issues I see. First, the LEAD is far too short and doesn't summarize the whole article. The criticism section (see WP:CSECTION) shouldn't be there. Too many WP:CLAIMs in the history section. There are probably many other issues with the article but those are the ones that stood out to me at first glance.

Major concern: To put it simply, there are simply way too many questionable sources in the article:

  • The Straits Times (cited 11 times): The Strait Times (TST) is currently rated as WP:MARL at RSP. Additionally, the last RfC indicated that "news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt." Given that this entire article concerns Singapore politics, we should probably not rely on this source too much.
  • channelnewsasia (cited 20+ times): Based on this post at RSN, the overall reliability of CNA is kinda mixed with participants saying it should be treated the same as TST on matters concerning Singaporean politics.
  • Online Citizen (cited 4 times): Based on various RSN posts (1, 2, 3), the current consensus is that Online Citizen is not an RS. An editor has said that "The Online Citizen and REDWIRE do not pass the muster to be considered as reliable sources." and no editors have spoken in favor of treating Online Citizen as an RS.
  • TodayOnline (cited about 5 times): See the above posts but most editors compare it to TST or CNA in terms of Singaporean politics.
  • Mothership (cited 2 times): In this archive, one editor commented "Also most of the media sources you bring up are not reliable (mothership, vulcanpost)." In this unanswered tread, the OP stated "Looking at their about us page, there's nothing too suspicious, though the site didn't stand out as clearly reliable to me either".
  • SingaporeLegalAdvice.com (cited 10 times). There is no mention of this source at RSN but this is a law firm that likes to advertise their services. Its "editorial team" consists of two individuals. It does not seem like an RS to me.

I'm sorry but the vast majority of this article is cited to questionable or unreliable sources. Strong sources are a necessity for GA. I will need to quick fail this article because "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Since I am still new to GA reviews, I will allow a more experienced reviewer close this. Thank you very much and I wish you luck on improving this article! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, can you add this and your other review to the list of reviews needing an experienced reviewer, so someone can pick this up to check on it? Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, sure thing! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, and Asilvering: I concur with the review and am closing the nomination. Dr.Swag Lord has done an excellent job demonstrating which sources need to be improved before the article reaches GA. While some of these sources could be used in a limited manner or alongside more reliable sources, the article's reliance on them precludes it from Good Article Status. Thank you for the thorough first review; it has given the article a solid framework for continued improvement. Fritzmann (message me) 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the closure. It gives a general direction of what to do next with the article. Thanks to all those involved. :) – robertsky (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protection_from_Online_Falsehoods_and_Manipulation_Act_2019&oldid=1232059523"