Talk:Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019
 | Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by – robertsky (talk) at 14:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Statute of the Parliament of Singapore |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Proposed merge of Alex Tan into Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019
- 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.
WP:BLP1E, most reliable, non-biased coverage comes from his pages being banned under POFMA. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
]
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)]
- 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)]
- 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
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose The subject had notable activities outside of running STR, and was reported so (i.e. being an editor of The Real Singapore, and being an candidate to a general election. ) If BLP1E is still a concern, a rewrite and move to WP:UNDUE weight to the website. – robertsky (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)]
- Weak Oppose I feel there is enough info for a stand alone article. In relation to the WP:BLP1E matter, I feel that there has been one standout event and then other, less notable, events in this article which is allowed under BLP1E. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 07:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)]
- Oppose per robertsky and GMH Melbourne. S5A-0043Talk 05:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
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.