User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
We want structures that serve people, not people serving structures. — Anonyme,
mai '68

Welcome to my Meet-the-Pluie session - or more commonly, my talk page.


TOC

As established at

WP:RSN, The Online Citizen, as a groupthink blog, should be used sparsely and is not for most purposes a reliable source. Therefore I don't think you can characterise it as "valid". I've reworded the section to make it sound less POV. It was pretty anti-TPL, and as much as I don't like her or the fact that she's now an MP, we have to maintain neutrality. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

It is perhaps not the most ideal standalone source -- but what is wrong with it having as supplementary source ? It is a source that supports the other sources. I do not think we should remove the source. WP:RS doesn't say that you should remove sources that do not fully qualify as WP:RS, but rather remove statements that are not backed by WP:RS. Furthermore what is a reliable source depends on context. We can be sure they did not fabricate the Elections Department document, and the depth of the reaction means we can cite both the TR article and the government document to avoid violating WP:OR. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to cite TOC as a supplementary source and quite another to cite it as a source in a blatantly biased paragraph, which only adds to the appearance that the entire section is POV. I'm quite happy for you to restore it (further discussion notwithstanding either here, on the article talk, or at RSN) if the section does not (as it did) take on an ostensibly anti-TPL or anti-PAP tone. This article is due to go up on
T:ITN soon and we could do without a POV tag to scupper its Main Page chances. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not think it is that POV -- we are almost covering all the facts of the case and we aren't given any more. The entire incident reflects badly on TPL obviously, but that is because that seems to be the majority view. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The majority view online, perhaps. As an administrator, if an editor raises a point to you that he or she thinks content you are adding may be POV, wouldn't it be wise to ask for a second; third; fourth opinion? Because I certainly think unsourced statements like "This fact was not covered in the state press." are POV. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my intention -- that was just to help clarify that the "official" state press view of events and independent blogosphere's views (which occasionally source their own arguments credibly) are different. This is not POV, but reality. Singapore's situation, because of a lack of press freedom, is unique. Occasionally notable events are only discussed by independent, notable reporting. For now we can consider many independent blogs not to be prima facie reliable, but reliable on a case by case basis. In America, partisan views would have easily found a mainstream venue. (Fox News is considered a reliable source, after all.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to
    di-replaceable fair use disputed
    }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, why do you think the image is replaceable? The original image was an iconic one and a major election issue. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 20:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to go to the file and edit it as stated above, giving your reasons why the file can't be replaced. An administrator will look into the matter and decide. We hope (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the file because it is non free one with living subjects, that's all. We hope (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Temasek Review