Talk:Teo Ser Luck

the Yahoo! News article is a reliable source

It puzzles me why I am accused of vandalism a) it is a content dispute b) it is common sense SingaporeScene is a reliable source. Its subtitle is "fit to post" -- i.e. there is editorial control. All articles are written professionally. Articles have no POV disclaimers and are strongly linked with the Yahoo! News brand and even a physical address for the Yahoo branch in Singapore. Fann Sim is listed as a journalist; Jeffrey Oon is the SingaporeScene editor; SingaporeScene was formally called the Yahoo! Singapore Newsroom. It is not good Wikiquette to be incivil and accuse editors you disagree with as vandals; furthermore, the use of sockpuppets is disturbing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that source is that its writing style shows that its more befitting of a blog/semi-serious editorial style rather than a serious article. I've copied the relevant section word for word here below:

"Teo Ser Luck transformed himself into somewhat of an overaged, over-enthusiastic cheerleader during one of the PAP rallies by yelling all the names of six-man Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC team. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports saved the best for last when he shouted for the estimated 1,000-crowd to chant his own name. The response was, er, less than encouraging."

Of course we can get another opinion from a more experienced editor on this, but my personal strong take on this is that its not meant to be taken as a serious write up and unsuitable for use as a source. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fann Sim's other articles are strongly professional; in addition The Economist makes similar criticisms (in slightly different language all the time), and reputable news columnists are known to make similar humour when politicians make serious public gaffes. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

yes she does write professional articles but that does not mean she does not write less serious pieces. Be objective and do tell truthfully, does the wording in that article sound like it belongs in a serious article? Your answer will tell us a lot about what you deem as credible.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

He probably can't find one. That's why he kept insisting. There isn't any even substatial information in her article/blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am in favour of restoring it -- it is no different than a NYT editor writing a humourous opinion column that is nevertheless backed by editorial discretion (the key part of WP:RS). It is definitely not a self-published source. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

An opinion column is named such because it is the opinion of that one writer, unless it is backed by some secondary/tertiery sourced information. In which case the source should be those secondary/tertiary sources rather than the opinion piece. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, opinion columns are allowed if the editorial discretion is very high. Opinion columns are generally secondary or tertiary sources, used to advance an argument, but not very dissimilar to theses or academic research, which too, must advance an argument. Opinion columns and talk shows in America often lead discussion or are some of the most frequent sources for talking points on politicians' articles. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But you do not see them being used as sources of information for encyclopedias and quality research. And as you rightly pointed out, their use may lie only in reinforcing a PRE-EXISTING quality source. Does the term "not encyclopedic" mean anything to you?Zhanzhao (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Many scandals/issues have been raised in America via opinion pieces or even through magazines such as The New Yorker. Based on their policy (and the lack of a disclaimer), Yahoo News! Singapore's professional journalists hold a certain opinion; we can report this opinion reliably, the same way one might report the opinion of Ann Coulter and so forth. Within an editorial lies serious reportable discussion. We are asserting the presence of an opinion, an opinion of a news source with editorial discretion, we are not asserting it as fact. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The examples you mention would all eventually written up as hard news articles, which is clearly not the case here. Quit flogging a dead horse. Tell you what. Feel free to raise it to the RS board, and if this article is accepted as a reliable source I will not say another word on this issue. Thats what the RS board is there for after all. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Teo Ser Luck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605123150/http://local.pap.org.sg/candidate/teoserluck to http://local.pap.org.sg/candidate/teoserluck
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401220612/http://www.prpg-tc.org.sg/cms/index.php?page=mp4 to http://www.prpg-tc.org.sg/cms/index.php?page=mp4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)