Wikipedia:Peer review/Lee Kuan Yew/archive1
Im trying to make it a Good article or if possible a FA. Any feedback is welcome Leidiot 05:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your references are few (mainly in a single section) and erratically formatted (make them all inline citations). As I have discovered, a FAC will fail immediately without them. Good luck!Dev920 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Below is what has been discussed with one of the Wiki editors about what is written in the Lee article.
Good day. I've noticed your concerns regarding this article at Deletion Review and elsewhere, and would like to give you a bit of assistance in dealing with this matter.
Firstly, your edits are not being undone by agents of the subject, they're being undone by Wikipedia editors enforcing our policies and guidelines. Most importantly, your edits are not neutral - they are written with a distinct point of view, which is against our policies for articles. Articles must be written in a neutral tone. Secondly, you are not citing reliable sources in the edits. All edits must be verifiable to be included in our articles. If you have good reliable sources - and please read that link to ensure that you are using reliable sources - then your information may be useful in the article.
I highly suggest that you discuss the additions you wish to make and the sources you wish to use on the article's talk page before editing any further on the above subject. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tony,
I am not sure if this is how or where I am supposed to talk about this issue but here it is:
The Lee Kuan Yew article that exists now is not neutral, it claims that Lee cooperated with (first it says pro-communists and then it says communists), this is the point of the declassified British documents, their investigation carried out by British police in Singapore during the era could find no evidence that Lim Chin Siong was a communist. Dr Greg Poulgrain of Griffiths University observed that the British Governor of Singapore and his Chief Secretary in their reports to London had admitted that the police could find no evidence to establish that Lim was a communist. Lim was the main opposition leader who broke away from the PAP which he helped found. The name of Lim's party was the Barisan Socilis, they never claimed to be communists and the leaders of the communist parties in Malaysia and Thailand also said that Lim was not part of their organizations. I cited the book 'Comet in our Sky' which details all of this.
Dr. Chee Soon Juan the current Singapore opposition disident that is in lots of hot water lately says that Lee Kuan Yew came to power unjustly by imprisoning the opposition party and claiming they were communists. There is no evidence that they were communists, Lee was just using this as an excuse to get them out of the way. Wikipedia is letting the dictator Lee Kuan Yew use Wikipedia to further his propaganda by letting this article continue to claim that the opposition were communists.
You can read all about it on www.yoursdp.org , http://singapore-democracy.blogspot.com/ and also http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2006/07/history-of-pap-part-iv-lim-chin-siong_06.html
Chartliner (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I honestly know little about the topic myself, which is why I suggested you take up the discussion on the article talk page. However, looking at the sources you point out, two are blogs - which are not considered reliable sources - and the third doesn't resolve right now. I looked at the book's results too, and they were kind of slim, but it would be at least one reliable source. You need to consider relevant sources such as magazine articles, newspapers, and similar references as far better options for sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The first source I cited is the main opposition parties website in Singapore www.yoursdp.org , it seems to be offline at the moment, they have been having problems with their server. Below are paragraphs taken from their website, which has a review of the book 'Comet in Our Sky'.
This is as good a referrence as it is possible to get, this book is quoting two scholars from top universities:Tim Harper who teaches Southeast Asian history and the history of the British empire at the University of Cambridge in London.
The second is Greg Poulgrain, a professor at Griffiths University in Australia who has been researching Southeast Asian history for more than 20 years.
"Schools teach Singapore children that Lee Kuan Yew heroically delivered Singapore from the evil clutches of the communists and gave us what we have today.
Whether such an assertion is historically accurate or not, the Government seems intent to seal this version in the annals of Singapore. When filmmaker, Mr Martyn See, released Zahari's 17 Years in which Mr Said Zahari talked about his 17-year detention, the Government promptly banned it.
It, it stated, "will not allow people who had posed a security threat to the country in the past to exploit the use of films to purvey a false and distorted portrayal of their past actions and detention by the government."
When Lim Chin Siong, another of Lee Kuan Yew's prisoners, died in 1996, the PAP was equally anxious to make sure that Lim's portrayal as a revolutionary communist remained etched in the minds of the people.
In response to a tribute that the SDP had written about Lim, the PAP through then MP Dr Ow Chin Hock, said that the Barisan Sosialis (Socilaist Front), of which Lim was its leader, fought the Government in 1966 "on the streets, according to the teachings of Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution."
It was a bald-faced lie. Lim was already in prison under ISA detention in 1966 and could not have led his party in anything.
This, it seems, was not the only untruth that the PAP has been telling us.
For example, Dr Ow pointed out that Lim was not fighting for a democratic Singapore (the cheek) but a communist one. Lim would have turned Singapore into "Mao's China or Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam", the PAP insisted.
Besides, it was the Internal Security Council (ISC) under the command of the British and not the PAP Government, who ordered the arrest and detention of Lim and colleagues.
This was because there were only three PAP representatives on the ISC and they were "outnumbered" by the other four members on the Council, three British and one Malaysian.
Nothing could be more untrue.
Top-secret documents held by the British Government, now declassified, reveal some jaw-dropping facts about Lee Kuan Yew and how he came to power.
Two history scholars studied these papers and presented their findings in the book Comet In Our Sky (available at Select Books at the Tanglin Shopping Centre).
The first is Tim Harper who teaches Southeast Asian history and the history of the British empire at the University of Cambridge in London.
The second is Greg Poulgrain, a professor at Griffiths University in Australia who has been researching Southeast Asian history for more than 20 years.
This SDP feature presents a summary of Dr Harper's and Dr Poulgrain's chapters. It contains some shocking archival material.
It also attempts to answer questions like who were people like Lim Chin Siong and Said Zahari? Did they really pose a security threat to the country? Were they communists hell-bent on undermining constitutional/democratic means of governance in Singapore? Was it really the ISC that was responsible for their arrest and imprisonment? Most important, is the PAP's version of history based on fact?
Remember, this narration is not the SDP's rendition of events past. It is a collective summary of the research done by two historians.
To ensure that this present essay remains faithful to Professors Harper's and Poulgrain's works, quotes from the historians' chapters are used liberally.
Still, don't take our word for it. Get a copy of Comet In Our Sky and read for yourself the real history of the PAP and Barisan Sosialis."
The full name of the book is 'Comet in our sky: Lim Chin Siong in History' There are several reviews of it using a google search.
Chartliner (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the opposition party's website woudl be considered a primary source, which would be disallowed under WP:RS; the blog entry is interesting, but again it's essentially the opinion of the writer, and that again is not a neutral viewpoint. I strongly suggest you find some references that are in magazines, newspapers, etc. if you can, and work with those on the talk page of the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC) There is a double standard going on here, the article as it stands on Wiki does not give any sources for claiming that Lee Kuan Yew formed an expedient relationship with the "pro-communists" or as it states later the "communists". Who wrote this and what is the source? It is really Lee kuan Yew and his People's Action Party propaganda which as I have pointed out has been disproven by declassified British documents.
As for the opposition party's article the below information clarify's things... "Remember, this narration is not the SDP's rendition of events past. It is a collective summary of the research done by two historians.
To ensure that this present essay remains faithful to Professors Harper's and Poulgrain's works, quotes from the historians' chapters are used liberally. Still, don't take our word for it. Get a copy of Comet In Our Sky and read for yourself the real history of the PAP and Barisan Sosialis."
There are plenty of biased magazine articles out there too, they are not always such a good reference. I have not had a response in the talk area of the Lee article. Chartliner (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Chartliner"