Talk:Lee Kuan Yew

Harry Lee

@Harfarhs: I was the one that wrote most of the sections you have stated including the footnote. You mentioned sources from the 50s and 60s which mentioned "Harry Lee". Please cite them, as most sources I can find from the era always refer to him by his full name "Harry Lee Kuan Yew", or simply "Lee Kuan Yew". There are none that I find that refer to him as "Harry Lee" exclusively.

I would be amiable if you can find any, but I have not found any. Seloloving (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The one of which I can inform you immediately, because it is on my own personal bookshelf, is Diaries of a Cabinet Minister by Richard Crossman (London: Hamish Hamilton / Jonathan Cape, 1975–77). The events described therein occurred in the 1960s. Crossman attended a dinner alongside Lee, and in his subsequent account evidently referred to him by the name with which he was familiar.

Please bear in mind that, without the connection being pointed out as my edit does, there is no reason that an English-speaking reader who had no background knowledge would link the name 'Harry Lee Kwan Yew' with 'Harry Lee' — because 'Lee' is a common surname throughout the English-speaking world, and has no necessary link to Chinese ancestry. Hence, it is of great importance that a passing mention of 'Harry Lee' by some source can be identified by a modern reader. Harfarhs (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Harfarhs, nevertheless, the point remains that the claim is not cited in the article, please do your cite your sources. None of my citations which I have provided give any confirmation that "Harry Lee" is a common name which was used exclusively. In fact, for a single source, I still disagree that it merits inclusion in the lead unless you can provide more. But I will be amiable and leave it to other editors if you can cite it.

My second point of contention remains that googling "Harry Lee" brings you straight to LKY's article, and as such "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew" is enough to identify him as the prime minister of Singapore. Your book would not have mentioned Lee without the context of him being the Singaporean prime minister if were about his activities in the 60s. If he had used an entire different persona, say "Lawrence Lee", it would make sense, but the information has already been repeated. Seloloving (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"the point remains that the claim is not cited in the article" — it is quite normal in the English Wikipedia for statements in the lead section to not be cited in that section. See MOS:LEADCITE. Given that his early name of 'Harry Lee' is affirmed several times later in the article, the subject is not controversial, and therefore your complaint is bizarre.

"None of my citations which I have provided give any confirmation that "Harry Lee" is a common name which was used exclusively" — you appear not to have understood my point about the frequency of the surname Lee outside the context of Chinese ancestry. If you look at List of people with surname Lee you will see most of them are not ethnically Chinese. (You might also look at Lee (English surname)). More to the point, there is no need to demonstrate that it was ever used "exclusively". The point is to tell readers of Lee Kuan Yew that when they find a mention of "Harry Lee" it may well refer to the subject of the article which they are reading, just as "Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm" may well be used in some sources to refer to Bill de Blasio. This is not rocket science. To repeat myself, this is Wikipedia, and we are writing for people without specialist knowledge.

"My second point of contention remains that googling "Harry Lee" brings you straight to LKY's article" — not relevant. This is Wikipedia; articles are intended to provide information, not to send people on a wild Google chase.

"..and as such "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew" is enough to identify him as the prime minister of Singapore" — incorrect, for the reason I have previously stated.

"Your book would not have mentioned Lee without the context of him being the Singaporean prime minister if were about his activities in the 60s" — you ought to be paying attention to the fact that it does mention him under the name of Harry Lee as being the Singaporean prime minister. That is the entire point of my mentioning the Crossman book.

"If he had used an entire different persona, say "Lawrence Lee", it would make sense, but the information has already been repeated" — incorrect. My edit makes the first mention of the name 'Harry Lee' in the article.

By the way, a series of links that it was very easy for me to find, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, demonstrate the truth of my assertion far more strongly than I had thought possible: it is clear that even modern sources are at pains to make clear to their readers that 'Harry Lee' was a name by which Lee Kuan Yew was known to many (or perhaps most) during some phase or other of his career. Harfarhs (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Harfarhs, how is Harry Lee the first mention in the article where it literally starts with Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew)? That remains my principle contention. I still do not see your point of view where "Harry Lee" can be indistinguishable from "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". In my view, the fact that his full birth name is given is enough to give readers the note that he is Harry Lee. I completely disagree that it warrants further clarification.

I am convinced by your sources, but do not find any need to list the same name twice in the lead. I would be amiable for a third party to resolve this, which you may choose at your liking. Seloloving (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"how is Harry Lee the first mention in the article where it literally starts with Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew)?" — it is, as I said, "the first mention of the name 'Harry Lee' in the article". You still don't understand, do you? We are talking about different names. The absence of 'Kuan Yew' makes it a different name. The only name indicated by the words 'Harry Lee' is 'Harry Lee'. There are billions of people on our planet, and if we are going to have a Wikipedia project we need to have as much clarity over names as it is possible to provide.

"I still do not see your point of view where "Harry Lee" can be indistinguishable from "Harry Lee Kuan Yew"" — my point is that they are not "indistinguishable", they are very very different, especially in the context of the experience of English-speakers from the Anglosphere who are used to white Westerners possessing the surname 'Lee', and who will therefore not automatically assume that someone termed 'Harry Lee' possesses the name because of Chinese ancestry or a link to Singapore.

"In my view, the fact that his full birth name is given is enough to give readers the note that he is Harry Lee. I completely disagree that it warrants further clarification." — you have not been paying attention to what I have been saying. This is Wikipedia; we do not "give readers the note", we state things plainly, clearly, precisely, fully, accurately, and verifiably, to the best of our ability.

"I am convinced by your sources, but do not find any need to list the same name twice in the lead" — I hope you realize by now that the names are not the same; but as regards "need", you might consider that I cited eight internet sources for you. More than one of them mentions 'Harry Lee' in the headline. Are you aware of the function of a headline? It is to attract people to read the subsequent text, and it does so partly by using familiar phrases. Any name used in a headline denotes a person who is already famous under that name. Anyone not famous under their name would, in a headline, be described instead by an epithet, e.g. "Local woman runs for office". It's clear from the links I posted that the name 'Harry Lee' is as worthy of mention in the lead of Lee Kuan Yew as 'The Rock' is in the article Dwayne Johnson. Harfarhs (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Harfarhs, I am sorry, but I still disagree that the absence of Kuan Yew makes it a different name. This is our fundamental point of diversion. "The Rock" is completely different from "Dwayne Johnson" and "Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm" is likewise completely different from "Bill de Blasio".

I could also cite that Donald Trump is a far more common name than Donald John Trump, and warrants a separate mention in the lead. 'Harry Lee' may be a worthy mention in the lead, but it's enough that it's mentioned as his birthname.

I would like to request a third party opinion, if possible, as it is clear our points of view cannot be reconciled. Seloloving (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"Harfarhs, I am sorry, but I still disagree that the absence of Kuan Yew makes it a different name" — do you agree that Thomas Gibson is a different name from Thomas Gibson Bowles? If not, why not?

""The Rock" is completely different from "Dwayne Johnson" — I never said that it was not "completely different" as a name. I said that it was as essential that it be mentioned in the lead section of its article as it is that "Harry Lee" should be mentioned here.

"..and "Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm" is likewise completely different from "Bill de Blasio"" — in fact, those two names have definite similarities as well as definite differences, in much the same way as "Harry Lee" is different from "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" but also has similarities with it.

"I could also cite that Donald Trump is a far more common name than Donald John Trump, and warrants a separate mention in the lead" — assuming that by "more common name" you mean "is more frequently used to denote that person", you appear to be unaware that Donald Trump is the title of an article, chosen because of WP:COMMONNAME, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to this case.

"'Harry Lee' may be a worthy mention in the lead, but it's enough that it's mentioned as his birthname" — it isn't "mentioned as his birthname". The statement of his birthname is "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew", as you well know. Harfarhs (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Harfarhs, for Donald Trump, I wasn't referring to the title. I was referring to the lack of mention of his common name in the first sentence of the article. Just because it is used doesn't mean it's necessarily needed in the lead.

Do you agree that Thomas Gibson is a different name from Thomas Gibson Bowles? If not, why not? I do, but that's like asking me if Harry Lee Kuan Yew and Harry Kuan Yew are the same name. In this case, "Harry Lee" is a very obvious phrase without a missing word in between. Repeating "Harry Lee" after it has already appeared as "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" remains moot to me. Added later To clarify what I meant, I note that on Thomas Gibson Bowles, there's a mention of his common name, which removed his middle name. On Thomas Gibson itself, there is no mention of his presumably common name in the lead.

As said, our core point of diversion is if "Harry Lee" and "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" are the same name, and we are no closer to coming to a consensus then we were 12 hours ago. I do not see your POV, and you do not see mine. To me, it would only merit a separate mention if his early name was "Harry Kuan Yew", "Kuan Yew Lee", "Lawrence Lee" or "Lee Harry". Otherwise, "Harry Lee" and "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" remains exactly the same to me. Seloloving (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Harfarhs, Separate reply

In any case. You appeared to have gained the silent consensus of other editors, and I am willing to abide by that since a third party opinion is likely not forthcoming. I do intend to eventually bring the article up to GA, having written most if its sections up to Singapore's secession. I appreciate the discussion, but if the issue does come up again in future, I will give you a courtesy ping as I am likely to side with its removal. Seloloving (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Only adding this view to contradict the "silent consensus" bit. I had planned to add my view but I am busy off-wiki and unfortunately cannot promise to be forthcoming with replies. I think Seloloving is right - the name "Harry Lee" was used too infrequently for it to earn a space in the lead, and this is especially given how unwieldy the article had become over many years because of details like this. LKY abandoned the name Harry the year he began professional life. I see Harfarhs' point: the name "Harry Lee" was sometimes used by British politicians and civil servants after that and if that's where Harfarhs discovered LKY, I can see why he thinks it's important to put it in the lead. However, such mentions were sparse and I think including this detail in the body is enough. In any event, "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew" sounds to me to be the best of both worlds: it shows that LKY once was known as Harry Lee and that the name was later dropped. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by, but I'm afraid you're mistaken on nearly all the points you mention.

a) "..the name "Harry Lee" was used too infrequently for it to earn a space in the lead, and this is especially given how unwieldy the article had become over many years because of details like this" — not "too infrequently", a point I address later in this comment at d); moreover, it is bizarre to wish to delete 60 or so characters in the lead for making the article "unwieldy", when more characters than that have been devoted later in the article to mentions of the use of the name 'Harry Lee'. I stated this, with evidence, much earlier in this thread.

b) "LKY abandoned the name Harry the year he began professional life" — perhaps that statement is true, though the Time source contradicts it, but in any case the point is irrelevant, because in Wikipedia we do not rely on people's own wishes as to what name they are assigned in the encyclopaedia; we rely on the sources.

c) "I see Harfarhs' point: the name "Harry Lee" was sometimes used by British politicians and civil servants after that and if that's where Harfarhs discovered LKY, I can see why he thinks it's important to put it in the lead" — it is not "where Harfarhs discovered LKY"; but in any case (as I very surprisingly, but evidently, need to state here) my personal experiences play no part whatsover in my editing, and never will play such a part.

d) "However, such mentions were sparse" — perhaps you did not see the eight hyperlinks I supplied for Seloloving, which demonstrate that "sparse" is a most inappropriate word. However, "sparseness" should not particularly matter, given that my focus is on improving the understanding of the article's readers, and that my aim is to make certain that people understand which names he was known under during his life, and to what extent – and (even more importantly) to make certain that they can quickly become aware, when scanning sources, of which person is being talked about. This project ought to encourage such education.

e) "In any event, "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew" sounds to me to be the best of both worlds: it shows that LKY once was known as Harry Lee" — no, it does nothing of the sort, as I've stated time and time again during this thread. What it purports to show is that LKY was once known as 'Harry Lee Kuan Yew'. Possibly someone with an intimate understanding of Chinese naming might see the point somewhat differently — but this is the English-language Wikipedia, where such specialist knowledge on the part of readers cannot be anticipated, and therefore the phrasing must be more detailed and explicit, unless the wish of editors is that the time of millions of readers worldwide is to be wasted. Harfarhs (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Harfarhs, if I understand you correctly, you are concerned for a reader who may encounter the name "Harry Lee" and not realise that it is referring to the Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew, rather than Harry Lee of Essex or Chattanooga. I have gone through your points and can't see the basis for concern. None of the sources you append refer to the subject exclusively or even primarily as "Harry Lee" rather than "Lee Kuan Yew". In fact, almost all are clear that he was primarily known as Lee Kuan Yew. I can't say for the Crossman book as I haven't read it, but I would be amazed if a reader didn't realise that Crossman was sitting with the Singaporean politician. I am not persuaded by the point on English naming - I think this amounts to mollycoddling Western readers.

People may be known affectionately by a variety of names in their lives. Most of these are non-notable. When they are, they find a suitable spot in the article. The suitable spot for this one is somewhere in the body. There may be call to expand the section in the body that speaks to how, why and when he was known as "Harry", or to add a note that his birth name became a bit of fascination for people in his later life. Space in the lead section is more valuable than it is in the body, and to put this tidbit in the lead is WP:UNDUE.

For clarity: I accept that the encyclopedia is meant for the lay reader, and not the specialist. But this does not mean including every bit of background into the lead: this makes the article clunky, unwieldy and unreadable. This is such a piece of information - a skim of the other references in the article will show how rarely the name "Harry Lee" was used to refer to the man. So rarely in fact, that the use of "Harry Lee" rather than "Lee Kuan Yew" is eye-catching, and makes a subtle point, as it did in some of the sources you cited.

My position is still - the lead section is not the right place for it. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Cantonese

The Early Life section says that LKY learned Cantonese. This is cited to a reliable source, but there are reasons to doubt it is true:

• In a 2009 speech, LKY said, "I have learned and used six languages – English, Malay, Latin, Japanese, Mandarin and Hokkien."
• This article, based on an interview with his brother, mentions the use of English and Baba Malay in their childhood, but not Cantonese.[1]
• LKY's wife said, "“Both Kuan Yew and I come from Peranakan families, speaking no Chinese, not even dialect.”[2]

The fact that LKY did not speak any Chinese language until adulthood is pretty important. Would anyone object to removing the statement that he learned Cantonese? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the mention of Cantonese. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I think I may have been the one that added that source. Seloloving (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Seeking Consensus on Infobox

I would like to edit the infobox to reflect include that Lee had studied at:

1. Raffles College (now the National University of Singapore);
2. the London School of Economics;
3. and Raffles Institution.

The fact that Lee Kuan Yew received a local education at what's now the National University of Singapore is relevant, especially in light of the fact that most know Lee as primarily having attended Cambridge University. Including Raffles Institution also reflects Lee's education at one of the premier secondary schools in Singapore, and considering the context of Singapore where one's secondary school is something of note, I believe this should also be reflected. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Infobox

Should the infobox reflect his education at Raffles Institution and the London School of Economics?Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Raffles Institution, yes. London School of Economics, not necessary in my view, since it had no subsequent effect on his life or career. Seloloving (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That statement is very subjective. I vote for inclusion. It is a basic matter of fact pertaining to his history, hence his bio.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition, should his time at Raffles College be included as well? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we have external sources that provide summaries of his life in a similar way? CMD (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

His parliamentary biography stated that he was educated at Raffles Institution and Raffles College, but did not include his time at LSE [1]. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to follow that then. CMD (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes to both. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Dedicated premiership article

Should a dedicated premiership article be

• a) split into 1959-1963, 1963-1965, or 1965-1990
• b) split into 1959-1965, 1965-1990
• c) not split at all?

Thoughts? I am asking because I have recently been inspired by Elizabeth II's article to finally make an effort to minimally bring it close to a GA standard. Seloloving (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that a premiership of Lee Kuan Yew article should be created, because I don't see how whatever could be said can't be put in the current article. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Pre-Lee geographical framing

The framing of Singapore prior to Lee's development as "an island of mudflats and swamps" doesn't seem to be 100% the right thing to say, as the island still had a port city on it. I don't know too much about Singaporean history, however, and would like to hear more input. Lucksash (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Singapore was a trading post for the British, and one of the key posts in the region. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I recall it used to be like "from third world to first". What was wrong with that? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Something like that would be good, or something like "from underdeveloped to extremely well-developed". Lucksash (talk) Lucksash (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)