Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Hi Ahnan, do note that blogs are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. I see the blog is a political blog, which makes its neutrality in doubt. If possible, please use news sources instead.

With regards to the copyright violations, I referred to you taking the text word for word from the news sources. Despite what you think, under Wikipedia policy, taking chunks of text verbatim from news sources still constitutes copyright violation. With reference to Channelnewsasia, the site specifically states "Copyright © 2010 MediaCorp". However, you are allowed to reference the news site then paraphrase the content. Please get yourself more familiar with what is allowed and not allowed under WP:Copyright Violation policies. It would make one wonder if the rest of your edits are similarly in copyright violation, whether you are committing it on purpose or not.DanS76 (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to refer to [and Fair Use] which states specifically that "Wikipedia is subject to US copyright law in this matter and may not host material which infringes US copyright law". All you need to work around that is to paraphrase it such that you are not using it word for word. Another revert of this in violation of wiki policies would be a violation of 3RR.116.14.4.32 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^ What he/she said. DanS76 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DanS76 who is also 116.14.4.32, pls read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#What_is_fair_use.3F I'm not copying the whole text, only quoting the relevant citation. It's under FAIR USE, which means copying a small part of it is permissable esp for illustration purpose and for nor-profit use. I'm keep the quote intact because this is what was reportedly he said. Go check out other wiki entries. There are entries with citations of famous people. Another revert of this is a violation of wiki policies and I shall be reporting you! Ahnan (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your "reporting" me for edit warring only exposes your own lack of what is or is not allowed under Wikipedia policy to the more senior editors. As per the edit warring instructions, Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption. Anyway Angus McLellan has also provided his own feedback on where you went wrong, so hopefully you learn from your mistake and don't re-commit the same mistake the next time. And by the way, I'm not 116.14.4.32. It does not do you justice to jump to conclusions and group anonymous IPs with log-ed in editors just because the lot of us rejected your edits for being not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Or next you'll be implying that I am Angus McLellan as well. DanS76 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons tells us that "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The material on Lim's comments on the Jack Neo affair was poorly sourced - Google calls the source a blog - and has therefore been removed. As I read the material, there was a Straits Times story about the correction. That would be a much better source. Although even if better sourced, the material might still be inappropriate and even if included would need to be handled differently. See the "Criticism and praise" section of the BLP policy page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the references and the text a little. I guess there are cultural differences at work here but I really don't see what was so controversial about Lim Biow Chuan's actions. Like I said, cultural differences. The problem is that the incident takes up almost half the article which seems odd. It's a stub so I guess that sort of thing will happen, but is this the most notable thing he's done? SQGibbon (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text and referencing is so much better now. Would have prefered that Ahnan himself/herself added the content back in after he/she paraphrases /re-references it so that she can learn from this incident, but as long as the content is introduced within acceptable wiki-quality this case shouold be closed.DanS76 (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just got rid of the reference to Stomp. I didn't realize it was a blog/social media website. Without that the "controversy" of Lim's statement is even less controversial and comes down to one line from the Star that isn't all that damning. I'm not sure what to do from here as there doesn't seem to be much significance to this story. SQGibbon (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mention is ok. I'm just concerned that the article as it is, as well as from the referenced source, does not show who criticized him/who he is under fire from. As it is written at the moment, the criticism could have come from any one of his fellow politicians, opposition party members, anti-Jack Neo groups, womens rights groups, normal netizens etc etc, and if it was widespread criticism or just a minority, but thats probably a minor quible. I'm sure our resident die-hard contributor will be back to provide some references to make that point clearerDanS76 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just discovered that Ahnan is "canvassing" for support from outside Wikipedia [[1]].

From: kojakbt_89 Apr-12 12:20 pm

To: ALL

Help! If you guys free, pls go in and help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lim_Biow_Chuan

I'm trying to add the controversy section where this PAP MP mentioned about supporting Jack Neo's affair initially but changed his statement the next day saying that he is misquoted (if you read the news, you will know that no way journalist can misquote him).

Anyway, there is a PAP mf now engaging edit war with me. He's deleting the controversy stuff off accusing me of infringing copyrights. How can I be infringing copyrights when I'm quoting just what Lim said and not the whole article?

Everytime I reinstate, he will delete. And now, he is threatening to report me to wiki mod!!!

Will drop him a note on his user page in case he is not aware of Wikipedia's policy against canvasing, but the damage may already be done as the thread is 2 days old and already lists suggestions on how to work around the system used to safeguard Wikipedia content and posting; hope the article does not get invaded by a whole slew of "supporters"; page protection tags ruin the aesthetics of the page DanS76 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is no indication from the article who criticized him which means this article suffers from the same defect. Which of course leads us to Weasel words. I do not think there's anything left to do but delete the section. It's even more important since it's a BLP issue. As for the canvassing, I haven't seen any evidence that it's actually resulted in anything (except for maybe one editor) so we'll just keep on and deal with that if it happens. SQGibbon (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in the context of the reference given, its a post by a user of the site, not a named journalist or someone who can be held accountable for statements made. If you feel this is in doubt, feel free to debate this issue under the WP:RS.DanS76 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user at that. There is nothing notable or reliable about the article. It's a clear cut decision to delete it especially given that this is a BLP issue. SQGibbon (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Just to get this out of the way, I've posted the question of Stomp's usability as a source to the WP:RS notice board [[2]] so we can let the other editors judge it.DanS76 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I've removed the Stomp ref for now but it doesn't change the controversies. The Star article is quite specific relating to Lim under fire from the public. Dan, you are a Singaporean, I presumed. I appeal to your conscience. You know and I know that this incident has happened and it was a big thing. Why do you want to hide this info? Even if you are a supporter of Lim, don't you have a conscience? Don't you think it's morally right for people to know about his controversies? Why do u want to hide the info. I cannot understand... Ahnan (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not mention he came under fire from the public. You would do well to read the discussion above to find out what the exact issue is.DanS76 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]