Talk:Hock Lee bus riots

Chief Minister

What has DAvid Marshall done to in an attempt to stop the riots while it was ongoing? 220.255.1.88 (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC) ME! :D

David Marshall has tried to settle the dispute between the Hock Lee bus Company and Singapore Bus Workers' Union (SBWU), but both sides could not reach an agreement. LINYU1742T (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Recent edits feature quite a bit of wording where the editor has been adding stuff as if it were a personal presentation/debate, based on his/her opinion. Can't put my finger on the exact policy this is violating, but is this presentism? or something else?

Zhanzhao (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My recent edits have been removed repeatedly by the above user. I do not feel that I am violating Wikipedia policy as my references are all based on scholarly articles and books with a few news articles to emphasise my points. It conveys a version of history that has not been foregrounded even though there have been many scholarly sources to support these alternative views. History is a debate, definitely in the case of the Hock Lee bus riots where official representations have been taken as the 'Truth' about the event. History is also representations of differing interpretations of the event, where you have the right to disagree with my opinions, I do not feel that my opinions should not be surfaced based on the fact that you disagree with them. I have merely presented an auxiliary view of the event based on the opinions of established academics in the field of Singapore history. For example, an overlooked dynamic of the event and its context is the nationalisation of the public transportation system in Singapore which came after the occurrences of the Hock Lee Riots and the Singapore Traction Company strikes. I have laid out the reasons and justifications using sources by reputable academics in the field of Singapore history. Please do explain why you feel that this is an "editorial style" post where there is a clear cause and effect supported by academic sources.

The user has also included paragraphs of the history of the Hock Lee Bus Riots without any proper academic citations or references to where he or she has obtained the information from. The single reference that the previous editor has quoted is George, Cherian; Chua, Morgan (2008). My Singapore. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions. p. 38. The above book is nowhere to be found both in the National Library Board, Singapore and in the National University of Singapore library. I have repeatedly attempted to remove this and replace it with a more accurate representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.228.35 (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a fairly wild accusation. I've not added anything, and have only reverted to an older version that was not even written by me. The problem with your edits are that from your wording and the way you present the comments, you are obviously trying to present what you feel are alternative points of view with strong emphasis on these new views. You'd do good to read up on WP:Neutrality, specifically the sections on impartiality, balance and words to watch, and also WP:EDITORIALIZING. Using "Instead, we would like to present an alternative view", "while there are different views....we can establish that....", "we are trying to establish", "while some studies have....we have seen that" is clearly an unencyclopedic way to add content. There should be no "we" telling the readers what "we" want them to believe. Just present the facts fairly in a balanced manner and let them decide.

Question, are you editor Bwtay? If you are, please log in when editing, in case this gets mistaken as a socking attempt. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

While wikipedia is meant to be an online encyclopedia, I believe that there is room for us to get creative with history. I have clearly stated that the representations are alternative and thus the interpretation and evaluation is entirely up to the reader to individually evaluate and form their own interpretation of this period of the past.

May I ask a question, what are these "facts" that you are referring to? How were they established? How decided on what should and should not be facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.228.35 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting "creative with history" is severely frowned upon here in Wikipedia. By presenting the facts, I mean just that. Just include a write up of the content, provide reliable and verifiable sources, AND avoid personal interjections, opinions, analysis or explicitely asking the reader to consider alternatives. As I advised before, please read up WP:Neutrality, specifically the sections on impartiality, balance and words to watch, and also WP:EDITORIALIZING. Wikipedia is not a forum for debating, nor a soapbox for people to promote their views. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see that my recent edits have all been backed up by academic sources as per Wikipedia's regulation. There is no personal opinion at all. Please look at my sources before you decide to undo my edits again. Do you have an issue with the sources that have been used in the wikipedia edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwtay (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made my latest edit, will appreciate if you can let me know the areas you would like me to correct, instead of reverting my changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwtay (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that these have indeed been FINALLY addressed. I'm getting my hands on some of the books shortly to verify, but the article looks okay at a glance, will go into detail when I have time. In future, please log in when editing, as its difficult to explain things if I can't even tell who I'm explaining it to. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hock Lee bus riots. 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/20071105193240/http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_4_2005-01-06.html to http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_4_2005-01-06.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)