Talk:Lee Kuan Yew/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A plea to other editors

If you see that user UCLARodent tries to edit out a segment of the "Legacy" subheading on this article about the admiration that Egyptian businessmen have shown for Lee Kuan Yew, please revert the text for me and inform me about the need for reversion. I don't have the time to engage in constant monitoring of this article, nor do I want to stand for UCLARodent's compulsion to downgrade the importance of reporting done by an author who has worked in the field for longer than said user has probably been alive. I edited out Robert D. Kaplan's own feelings about Mr. Lee because I felt that those assertions might be viewed by others as perhaps not passing the NPOV smell test, but I feel it is HIGHLY important that the person perusing Mr. Lee's Wikipedia article understand that quite a few people who have to deal with unstable sociopolitical climates admire Mr. Lee's ability to create order and stability where there was historically none. Plus I think there already exists in the article (under "Controversies") a nice balance of opposing opinions and feelings coming over from the other side. (Krushsister 19:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

The relevance of the concerned statement ([1]) is not very clear. It doesn't really add new information about Lee's legacy. Furthermore, it refers to some extremism issues, but without the proper context for understanding. --Vsion 17:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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 (the leader of the main opposition party) 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

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chartliner"

Image copyright problem with Image:PAPcandidates 1959.jpg

The image Image:PAPcandidates 1959.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:BSheares3rdterm.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Asian Values

Why are his influential and controversial contributions to the Asian Values-debate neither mentioned in the main page nor on the discussion page? This is something that you might not want to leave out!? I'm a wiki noob, so help me out here. But take this seriously.. his name is strongly pegged to asian values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.37.163 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry

I thought 'Harry Lee' was his birth name? 220.255.74.20 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

if you watched the discovery documentary, it was. also called harry by margaret thatcher, and british monarchs. he actually should be under Sir Harry Lee Kuan Yew as he was also knightedNicholas.tan 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that the Discovery documentary that was funded by the Singapore government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.53.184 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I once did a project on LKY for school, and I remember reading up something (I suspect it was from one of his own books) about how his father or grandfather gave him an English name because of the respect he had for the British. In contrast, LKY himself didn't like the idea of Asians succumbing to a sort of "cultural imperialism"- you will notice he did not give any of his children (Hsien Loong, Hsien Yang) English names even though he had one himself. Visaisahero 06:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes; MM Lee's full official name is Sir Harry Lee Kuan Yew' or MM Harry Lee Kuan Yew. But he usually uses MM Lee Kuan Yew or MM Lee, as he felt that the British should not be considered superior; he believed in meritocracy. Zhelⁱel 10:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proof? talk) 14:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Consequentialist?

The article consequentialism directed me to Lee Kuan Yew.

You know, he's not a academic philosopher, but anyhow, does anyone know anything about relationship between him and the ethical idea of consequentialism?

That would be a pretty good information about him, shedding light onto his philosophical (probably political philosophy) idea.

Lee is commonly refer to as being pragmatic; I believe this is different from consequentialism. I don't recall he ever use the "ends justify the means" reasoning to justify his policies. --Vsion 05:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

He agrees with Machiavelli, who says "si guarda al fine", meaning "the outcome is important". Contributions/116.15.177.251 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How come there's no mention about him receiving the Ig Nobel Prize in 1994 for "his thirty-year study of the effects of punishing three million citizens of Singapore whenever they spat, chewed gum, or fed pigeons."? He was listed in Wiki's entry of Ig Nobel Prize winners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.66.137 (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not terribly significant. Chensiyuan (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User Chensiyuan deleted the Ignobel Award, claiming it was uncited. But the top two awards are uncited too! You can see the list of Ignobel winners from the wikipedia entry, Lee Kuan Yew is mentioned there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.66.137 (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "claiming" it was uncited -- it is. Wikipedia policy is such that if potentially libelous material is mentioned, it has to be cited. Otherwise, it is okay not to cite if no one objects. You can't cite WP as a source btw, for self-evident reasons; placing a fact tag would also not suffice if the material is potentially libelous. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, reference provided now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.239.130 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa

I made a mistake re WP:MOS regarding this article. But I rv everything to the way it had been basically. I just wanted to explain the long trail of edits I left. My bad, sorry. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Family tree

Really necessary? That's all the way to the present day, everyone who's descended from him. Is it relevant? COI disclaimer: I went to school with some people named. sonia^♫♪ 21:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It just fills up the article and has little to no value at all, its full of not notable people and should clearly be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing half has been proposed, but I tried that here (work in progress) and it looks stilted. I would not object to a (much smaller) one that only includes his children, but I don't think even that is necessary given the text could easily cover whatever is notable. sonia♫ 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it adds anything that isn't already in the text, there are so many redlinks (or they would be if internals were added. There is one on David Cameron but at the bottom and hatted-closed so it takes up no space, looks to me like more of camarons ancestors are notable, that would be better at the bottom. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

'k, hideboxing it solves the space problem but creates a problem for people with non-compatible browsers; and the issue I was more worried about was the notability and relevance of the tree. sonia♫ 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about non-combat-able browsers, in my world there are non e of those thingies. I will move it to the bottom, I also do not think it is worthy and I am just looking for a compromise, but I left two messages for the objectors and nothing replies yet. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it to the bottom, if you want, remove it completely as after I posted notes at both users talkpages no one has come to discuss good reasons to keep it. 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have (again) removed the family tree as it is repeated in the prose, kills the flow, contains the names of minors, and contains unnotable people throughout. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, support that. Off2riorob (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been directed here from a request at "Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board" to comment on the discussion. I had a look at the (now deleted) family tree. In its original form it is rather large. However, I think that having a reduced tree that includes only notable individuals (particularly those who have separate Wikipedia articles written about them) – which would essentially be Lee Kuan Yew, his spouse, their children and notable spouses – would add to the article by making the family links obvious at a glance. I would omit Lee's ancestors and those of his grandchildren who are not notable (especially those who are still minors). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. sonia♫ 10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I gather you started the process and the others aided you to remove the tree. Your civil discussion below is at odds with yout action. I commented the last time you edited the article, that you left the PM's picture facing out the page - an atrocious move, considering your "endearing" but unproven connection with the family. Together with another typo mistake you stated in history, it also makes people wonder if you did it on purpose. -Wrigleygum (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I didn't make any unilateral action. I enquired about the family tree here. There was no response so I asked the question at WP:BLPN. Someone then removed the tree, which I did not coordinate and was unaware of until I noticed it on my watchlist later. I had no idea that the picture was facing out of the page, nor was it something I could have been expected to recognize and correct as part of a completely unrelated edit.

What exactly did I do on purpose? I didn't make the typo as far as I know, nor did I position the image that way. My connection (which was more unpleasant than endearing) was mentioned only because I felt that fair warning of my conflict of interest was due. Detailing my relationship with the family would require revealing my identity, which I am not willing to do. If in any way my conduct has been unsatisfactory, I apologise; if it has aggrieved you feel free to take it to AN/I. sonia♫ 02:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Found further discussion at User_talk:218.186.12.252. I agree with Jack that some form of tree is useful. -Wrigleygum (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

semi-relevant discussion from User talk:218.186.12.252

Please stop edit warring against multiple users on this article and use discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Insinuating that other editors know nothing about the subject at hand is also not helpful. Please do feel free to present your case on the talk page; you should not unilaterally make changes against consensus without discussion. sonia♫ 11:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Reasons already given, you have not reaponded. a visual family tree is a no-brainer - probably thousands on wiki with ancestors not yet described. Are you going after them as well? So you know the subject well? what makes you an expert.. who is not worthy on the tree? ~~ I know the family in question personally- or used to, I haven't kept in touch. Certainly doesn't make me an expert by any stretch, but I daresay I do know the subject. This is not about "worthiness" of individual family members, nor is it about the other articles with family trees. It is about the relevance and aesthetic quality of having the family tree in the article, especially positioned where and at the size that it currently is. Either way, talk pages are for discussing changes to be made. You know that more than one editor disagrees with you. That does not mean we are "cornering" you. It's not as if your argument can be weighed up objectively on its own merits if it's being put across through a series of reverts and edit summaries. That in itself makes it difficult for your content to stay and for us to see your point, so you are doing yourself no favours. Please discuss this on the talk page. sonia♫ 12:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: I'm not sure the family tree belongs in this article, but given the extreme prominence of the Lees in Singapore's government and business circles, it's most definitely notable, encyclopedic and belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. However, I don't really see any reason to omit it from here either, especially if hideboxed? Jpatokal (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Lee family already exists (and is irrelevant), but an article like Smith (family) may be of benefit in this case, and a link to it from this article. Would that be a suitable solution? What would that article be called? sonia♫ 02:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure a separate article is desirable unless someone is ensure that the article is going to contain substantial content that is properly referenced. The "Family background" section of this article seems fine, and a reduced tree as suggested above would fit in there. If it is felt that the tree would look out of place so early in the article (and I do not see why it should), we might consider moving the "Family background" section to the end of the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I concurs with JackLee on a reduced family tree, omits his ancestors and limits to his next generation (Aka Lee Hsien Loong's generation).Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think three generations (up to grandsons) would be better, eg. Li Hongyi already has his own WP article and we'll be hearing plenty more about them in the years to come. Jpatokal (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the only grandchild that should be named is Li Hongyi. All other non-notable grandchildren, particularly minors, should be left unnamed and simply labelled as "son" or "daughter", in line with "WP:BLP#Privacy of names": "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." (In fact, considering "WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event", I wonder if the article on Li Hongyi should remain at all.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The names of Lee's grandchildren are a matter of public record and their exploits get fulsome coverage in the Singapore press, so privacy is not an issue here. Here's ST on Li Shengwu [2], AsiaOne on Hongyi and Haoyi [3], ... Jpatokal (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:BLPNAME is not only to preserve privacy where it exists, but to avoid giving undue publicity where it is deemed unwarranted by the Wikipedia community. This is clear from the following statement in BLPNAME: "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." Thus it is recognized that even if the names of family members not particularly well known in their own right are no longer "private" in the sense that they have been published in news articles, they deserve some protection. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I was curious how this started with the people who deleted the tree, and found that independant views are not what they seem. I did a quick check at their talk pages -> [[4]] and the first thing we see are buddy chats that indicate they certainly help each other achieve their editing/delete objectives, ie sonia,Ktr101,Off2riorob. Its unfortunate that sg editors are getting fewer and less active than previous years. Hopefully sg articles in wiki will not get dominated by foreigners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.252 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to further discuss my associations with the subject and/or other editors, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. Let's keep this about the content. All I have to say now is that everything I do is with the intention of improving this encyclopedia and that there is no subterfuge here on my part. sonia♫ 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So Wikipedians can't be friends, eh? I just happened to come across her contributions and noticed her work on this page interesting so I investigated further. I resent being called a deletionist because I'm actually quite the contrary. On the other hand, I also have been around long enough to know what is notable. Just so you know, "foreigners" are the ones keeping the articles about Singaporans free of crap. Maybe you should realize that we're trying to help the article, not hurt it. A family tree with a lot of people who don't have Wikipedia pages is pointless because it just adds needless information to the article. Please don't speculate when you don't know all the facts. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nepotism

I remember that Lee Kuan Yew was accused of nepotism as his family members had high ranks et cetera, but MM Lee denied and banned those magazines. (I think the magazines were "Far East Economic Times" or something like that.) Maybe it should be added. Zhelⁱel 10:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Lee states, in his book, that The Far Esastern Economic Review and its editor Derek Davies were sued by Mr. Lee over a story about the governmnent attacking the Catholic Church. Mr. Lee won. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Brushover

I have just finished reading 3 of LKY's books and I am thinking of giving the article a brushover. He is an interesting person.

Nicholasporpington, please let me know which lines of mine you object to, and which you regard as opinions. I will rectify them. Because, I don't see any opinions at all, the part about his family are all facts sourced from his book.

I am open to writing his name as Lee Kuan Yew or simply Lee in the article, but I believe his real and birth name should be mentioned in the lead or infobox.

I will try to write about:

1. his achievements 2. family (very illustrious) 3. views and policies on things as prime minister: eugenics, asean countries, malaysia, british, socialism, national service, development of singapore, languages (quite a lot of these in his books)

Well that is provided there is no objections, if there is, i don't think i will bother to spend time to write. Let me know which parts you want to change, and more importantly, why.

Many thanks, Littleblackridinghood (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No citation

I deleted all the passages without proper citation. Any who can provide reputable sources can add them again. --Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete the text. Please just put a tag saying need citation after the offending text. I am working on finding the citations on several subjects. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Birth name: Harry Lee Kuan Yew

It is the common knowledge of most Singaporeans that LKY's birth name was Harry. That, I had tried to add in, complete with a source, LKY's latest memoir - My Lifelong Challenge: Singapore's Bilingual Journey, published 2012. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, who is a major editor to this page, has kindly reverted my inclusion of his birth name, time after time, oft quoting WP:UNDUE. I argued back, and the thread is here. I do not wish to repeat myself, so do just go there to read the argument. Done reading? Get my point? WP:UNDUE is only relevant to the inclusion of minority and subjective viewpoints, of which my inclusion was not; I gave a fact, oft mentioned in most of LKY's memoirs. Sir Nicholas, or just Nick, for simplicity, argues about it having not enough weight to be included in the lead; I argue WP:BIRTHNAME. It is really not about weight. And not to mention it does have weight! In fact, on Lee's degree from Cambridge, where he studied at, and on his Barrister-at0Law certificate at Middle Temple, he is put down as "Harry Kuan Yew Lee", because he failed to get them to omit his English name. This is a fact I found in his above mentioned memoir (pg. 35-36). As for my argument on Nick's talk page, all he did was to give me the following reply,

“ Thanks for attempting to discuss on my talk page. Please initiate a new discussion thread on Talk:Lee Kuan Yew in the interest of providing an opportunity to a wider number of editors who may be interested in the subject. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC) ”

So, what is your take? I would like to be bold and revert Nick's reversion, per WP:BIRTHNAME, but I think a safer way would be to discuss here, lest I get blocked or something. Do let me know about your opinion. Thank you. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See "Changed names" under the WP:FULLNAME section. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence on "Changed names" at WP:FULLNAME is about reference to someone mentioned in an article of which they are not the subject. That is not relevant here because we are talking about LKY in the article on LKY. If his birthname is Harry Lee Kuan Yew and he is still known to some as Harry Lee, which is his English name, as stated further down in the body of the article, I do not see why that is not included in the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, looks like you read it wrong, Nick! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are right about that, but since the person explicitly states that they stopped using the name it should not be included as per WP:BLP. Can you also reproduce the citation/source you are quoting in this instance. At this point of time, it remains unavailable on the Internet so it is impossible to judge by external scrutiny. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Invite more editors to discuss! Preferably those from Singapore, as them Singaporeans are more likely to have read it and can verify... When you say "reproduce", do you mean as in taking a snapshot and uploading the pics here? Aw, that's tedious, and besides, I already typed out the text! Hmm... You could always loan one from the library or buy one. :) But actually, there is a short overview of the book. My adobe crashed, so I can't view it; hopefully it covers until page 36, where his birth name is mentioned. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here. It isn't a violation of BLP, just because he stopped using it. Besides, he still is addressed by comrades and old friends, mostly in Britain, as Harry Lee. Some people change their name time to time, but there's still records of their past names. Can we simply remove such info just because its no longer in use? If such, Bill Clinton's birth name, which he legally changed and no longer uses, should be removed from that page. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where in BLP dos it state that publicly known former birth names must be removed, just because the "person explicitly states that they stopped using the name"? They stopped using it, it's no longer in use, yeah, but should it vanish from all history books and texts. Example, Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III, which he later legally changed to William Jefferson Clinton. He no longer uses the former. Should we remove the birth name from the lead then, since he has stated that he stopped using it? Should that be branded as a violation of WP:BLP? I think not. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought that how the name issue was handled in the Bill Clinton article is a good example to follow. In application to this article, I prefer Bonker's version. In the Family Background section though, the way it was written is too informal. it can do without the part about him being mildly annoyed to this day etc, since this is a time-sensitive statement and doesn't add much to the article since he's rarely referred to Harry anyway. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any issues mentioning LKY's English name in a section such as "Early life" or "Early life and career". However, mentioning "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" as a birth name in the lead section is not only an inaccurate assessment but also a potential BLP issue. Lee Kuan Yew has explicitly stated that he has stopped using the name, unlike Bill Clinton who used "Blythe" as his lawful surname until he turned fifteen. In the case of LKY, do we have any evidence to support the assertion that LKY was indeed born as "Harry Lee Kuan Yew"? Was this is lawful name from a birth certificate or simply an informal "English name" which many Asians tend to use? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The memoirs, read the memoirs. I was born Harry Lee Kuan Yew...; "was mostly known as ‘Harry Lee’ for his first 30 or so years, and still is to his friends in the West and to many close friends and family. He started using his Chinese name after entering politics". He stopped using his English name after his studies abroad. As far as I know, there is no actual documentation of an official birth certificate for him (back then, most probably they didn't follow that custom?) But it's already good enough when the subject talks about it, and calls it his birth name. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

By his memoirs, are you referring to "From Third World to First"? If yes, then I cannot recall reading those words in the book. Can you please refer me to the page number and the name of the book, please? Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nein nein, not that one. It's the one published this year in Singapore, hard copy, My Lifelong Challenge: Singapore's Bilingual Journey, pg. 35-36 (As I have already mentioned above, actually) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So, after some moments pf silence, what's the consensus? Do we include the birth name?? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I say yes. The fact that he doesn't choose to use it doesn't make any difference. A lot of people have middle or other names that they don't use, but it is still part of their name. -- 09:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with keeping it. As mentioned, I think the Bill Clinton version is a good example to follow. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Loudspeakers and highrises

Some reasons why this edit is not helpful:

• Goh Chok Tong, claimed ... had to adjust ... according as a result of government policy of uprooting Malay villages and replacing them with highrise
  • Falsely attributes to Goh Chok Tong something he did not say, and an extremely slanted and racially-charged characterization of natural urbanization.
• claimed Sinapore's Non-Muslims would not tolerate the Muslim call to prayer which had been a tradition for centuries
  • Fallacious irrelevancy, original analysis. The current policy is designed to be mindful of the fact that Singapore is now a very dense city in which Muslims are small minority. What happened "for centuries", and to what extent current practices (and technology: were there electronic loudspeakers "for centuries"?) can be seen as a continuation of the former is not documented by the editor.
• Limits were also placed on "racial" groups inhabiting Singapore's HDB buildings
  • Extremely misleading, implies that there was some racist quota for ethnic groups, when in fact the policy was designed to combat self-segregation and improve tolerance by encouraging cohabitation according to the island's natural demographic balance.
• this affected the Malay minority, who are mostly Muslim.
  • Please don't make this a Malay-centric article, too much weight is put on how the policy supposedly affected them, when this surely affected Chinese, Indians, Eurasians, etc.
• Many saw this as an attempt to weaken the position of religious and ethnic minorities who formed majorities in many parts of the island state.
  • More masking of the author's personal opinion in the voice of "many" unnamed people. Conspiratorial implications of ethnic and political suppression especially need sourcing and evaluation for balance.

Shrigley (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor in question doesn't seem to want to engage in discussion though. He's been warned twice on his Talk page, reverted multiple times, and also introduced these same edits to Islam in Singapore and Freedom of religion in Singapore. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Quotes by Lee

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/oct/19/the-singapore-way/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_leekuanyew.html

http://www.ucanews.com/news/australia-justifies-its-white-trash-of-asia-nickname/70324

Rajmaan (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)