Talk:Raffles Junior College/Wee Shu Min Inclusion Debate

Wee Shu-Min

I've just reverted an edit which added a "Criticisms" subsection devoted to the Wee Shu-Min incident. While the incident is notable, I'm not sure it merits an entire subsection devoted to it. On the other hand, I'm not sure where a sentence mentioning Shu-Min could be placed. She doesn't seem to fit under "Notable alumni", and there doesn't seem to be a precedent on the articles of other junior colleges that I can refer to. Does anyone have any ideas? -ryand 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What about a Controversies subsection? IMO, while a mention of this incident in this article add to the elitism hype, the issue pertains more to the person herself rather than the school. Therefore, just a minor mention in this article will do. —Sengkang 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, a Controversies subsection will have nothing in it but the Wee Shu-Min issue. I agree that the issue pertains more to the person rather than the school; also it should be noted that no other school article has information pertaining to the controversies surrounding their students. On the other hand, I don't have a better idea. -ryand 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I had solved your problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icecold1 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 November 2006.

No, you had not. Your edit was placed at the front of the article, in the middle of two paragraphs that dealt with the academic results of RJC. Not only was it out of place, it consisted a slightly-POV sentence largely taken wholesale from the Wee Siew Kim article. In addition, your latest edit also includes a sentence under the Affliation section that talks about Annabel Chong and her activities as a porn star, the former of which belongs (and is present) on the Raffles Girls' School article and the latter of which belongs (and is present) on Chong's article itself. I have reverted your edit, and I'd appreciate it if we discussed and came to a consensus about the issue on this page instead of getting into a revert war. -ryand 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Protofox. And, oh....look who's here to ignite sparks again. —Sengkang 12:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, whoever ignited the sparks will not be as bright as the one ignited by some elite students from some elite schools. By the way, the person that ignited the sparks are people that delete the contribution of others, which is against wikipedia guideline. Let me highlight some of those :

Do's

If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Dont's

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.

Therefore, by simply deleting and reverting others contribution just because one do not have a good idea where to place the writing is not a good reason. Since Ryan do not have any idea how to do it, then my idea will be the best, at least till this point in time.

Furthermore, Ryan does not has any proof what I had written is not true (I am willing to accept any challenge if what I wrote is false, however, I am confident that will not be the case since those thing I wrote is verifiable, again according to the guideline of wikipedia). In fact, I am just trying to present the whole truth to the readers.

Ryan wanted to "discuss and come to a consensus", but did he bother to discuss before he delete other's contribution? I always repect the view of others, and therefore I do not delete other's cotribution. icecold1 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry. Didn't notice this discussion before I reverted that edit. I'm for a delete, though. IMO the reference to Shu-Min is hardly needed, least of all in the second paragraph of the article. If a section on "controversies" or something similar, with that could be fine. But I must reiterate that one misdemeanour (don't worry, more may come)should not warrant (well, whether it is warranted or not is not up to you to decide) a permanent reference to her on the RJC article. I think ryand has already talked about Annabel Chong, which has nothing to do with RJC except through its' affliation with RGS, and is, as stated, mentioned on the appropiate article - 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fiveless (talk • contribs) .

By putting the Annabel Chong segment (totally irrelavant information) up only here, and I wonder why not on the RGS page( it is already on the RGS page, if you care to go to RGS page and check it out under notable Alumnae, thanks to your fellow RJC student RyanD who argue very hard in the RGS talk page to get Annabel Chong's name inserted), you have already demonstrated that you are biased against the school in some way (therefore your accusation of me being bias does not stand). As for the Wee Shu Min incident, if you are trying to express any unhappiness about us "elites" ( I have nothing against RJC, but just trying to present the whole truth) in RJC, please do it somewhere else like on a blog or something, where you are totally entitled to do what you want, and of course fully responsible (for the same argument, if you really have to maintain the "perfect image" of RJC, then you can also put it up on your own blog where you are totally entitled to do what you want). So please... don't make life so diificult for everyone here (who is making who's life difficlt here?), maybe you will want to count (if you have such a great interest in counting, be my guest) the number of times we had to revert your edits on the history page.220.255.165.19 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not for a delete, as I have mentioned previously that I respect the contribution of others, and is in accordance to the wikipedia guideline. However, if you want to include a seperate section, please go ahead. As for Annabel Chong, she is from RGS, and it was mentioned in the article that RJC is affliated to RGS. This bring us to the relationship whereby A=B, B=C, and therefore C=A. If you think that Annabel has nothing to do with RJC, then do not state that RGS is affiliated to RJC. You cannot cherry pick the relationship. icecold1 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Icecold1, the reason why I reverted your edit had nothing to do with the truth of the statement. I reverted your edit because of two reasons:

• One, it was badly-formatted, was a blatant copy-and-paste off the Wee Siew Kim article, and it was placed in an inappropriate section of the article (whether it is appropriate or not is not up to you to decide). This could have been easily remedied (but instead you chose the easy way out by just deleting others contribution), if not for the second reason: well, as I've mentioned, if you do not have a better idea, than mine will be the best, at least for the time being, you cannot prevent others from contributing just because you do not know what to do. Furthermore, I copy and paste so as to maintain a NPOV, I did not even put in my own perspective!icecold1 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Two, I was unsure of notability. As you seem to have noticed, Wikipedia does have guidelines. To quote WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Specifically, "that something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". In this case, while the issue is true and verifiable, the problem I'm concerned with is how much of the issue (and where it) should be placed in the article, if at all (this is a judgement call, which I presume you do not have an absolete authority in deciding, that is the reason why I do not delete others contribution because I think I am not in a position to make such decision.). That is why I asked you several times, both on your talk page as well as on the edit summaries, to please discuss the issue here before re-adding your edit (using the same argument, you should not delete my contribution till we come to a consensus).

Also, your argument about RGS and Annabel Chong makes no sense. Different articles exist on Wikipedia for a reason. Should we mention Annabel Chong on the Singapore article, seeing that Bishan is in Singapore, RJC is in Bishan, RGS is affliated to RJC, and Annabel Chong was from RGS? -ryand 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - Yes, if you want to, of course!

Apparently, you only asked after you deleted the contribution, but not before. icecold1 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just visited RGS page, and in the talk page, Ryan-D is the one that arguing very hard to include Annabel Chong in the RGS page, so speaking of bias POV, I wonder who is having a more bias POV. icecold1

First of all, NPOV does not stop at the wording of the article; but extends unto what information is included in the article. What you are doing is paramount to POV as your edit gives undue weight to the Wee Shu-min issue, as well as to the Annabel Chong issue.

Secondly, everything you say about me not having ultimate authority is right. However, if six other editors not including myself have also reverted your edit, then obviously there's something about your edit that needs fixing. You argue that I do not have absolute authority and should not revert your edit just because I think my stand is right; yet you are the one who refuses to accept any other stand but your own by repeatedly undoing any reverts. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and you claim to respect that consensus. In that case, please respect the current consensus that a) your edit should not stay on the article and b) that we should discuss the issue before any further edits are made.

As for your final point, that I felt Annabel Chong was notable enough to be included under the "Notable Alumni" section on the RGS article has nothing to do with your adding a large line of information on a porn star that was not only placed in the middle of the "Affiliation" section where it did not belong, but also in the article of a school that is only affiliated to Annabel Chong's secondary school.

I'm tired of this dispute, I'm going to bring this dispute to the mediation cabal. -ryand 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, NPOV does not stop at the wording of the article; but extends unto what information is included in the article. What you are doing is paramount to POV as your edit gives undue weight to the Wee Shu-min issue (undue weight? this is a POV statement as how much is undue weight? One sentence, two sentences?), as well as to the Annabel Chong issue.

Secondly, everything you say about me not having ultimate authority is right. However, if six other editors not including myself have also reverted your edit, then obviously there's something about your edit that needs fixing (I bet that these six editors are from RJC, furthermore, who knows, maybe you just log in using different user account. There are some who did not even log in, it is highly possible it is the same person editing using different computer). You argue that I do not have absolute authority and should not revert your edit just because I think my stand is right; yet you are the one who refuses to accept any other stand but your own by repeatedly undoing any reverts (that is because you guys keep deleteing my contribution, which is a very rude thing to do. I refrain myself from deleting what is currently in existing on the RJC page, which is a form of respect to those who have contributed to the page). Wikipedia is based on consensus, and you claim to respect that consensus (in no where in the talk page I said that I repect that consensus, I said that I respect the contribution of others by not deleting others contribution). In that case, please respect the current consensus (anyway, since I disagree, there is no consensus) that a) your edit should not stay on the article and b) that we should discuss the issue before any further edits are made (again, did you discuss first before you delete my contribution? No, you did not, you simply just revert the contribution without discussion).

As for your final point, that I felt Annabel Chong was notable enough to be included under the "Notable Alumni" section on the RGS article has nothing to do with your adding a large line of information on a porn star that was not only placed in the middle of the "Affiliation" section where it did not belong, but also in the article of a school that is only affiliated to Annabel Chong's secondary school.

I'm tired of this dispute, I'm going to bring this dispute to the (ha ha, just like a kid that lost the fight and ran to their parents for protection, I thought RJC's student are much stronger than that, but think about it, it is no surprise, just like WSH needs her father to apologise on her behalf)mediation cabal. -ryand 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick straw poll

Just to get an idea of what we all think we should do about the Wee Shu-min issue. Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place.

• Delete
  • ryand 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - or keep with the provision that the information be kept to one sentence or less.
  • Richardlu yy 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wee Shu Min issue short here, there is always the Wee Siew Kim article one can refer to. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 10:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep
  • Ryancc 11:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alpha12 14:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC) it seems that there are more than one WSM around

• • Echo9 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC) have been following this episode for awhile, and to me, it seems that ryand is trying to impose his view onto the world All three above users are admitted sockpuppets of icecold1. -ryand 06:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • icecold1 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I would like to note that the first three votes for Keep by Ryancc, Echo9 and Alpha12 are all first and only edits by the respective users, and that each account was created mere minutes before the edit in question. Not to mention that the usernames all seem to share a similar pattern. -ryand 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha Ha, I did it on purpose so as to leave you some clue.... this just show that anyone can create as many user id as he/she likes it. Therefore this stupid thing about Quick stra poll is just some useless and time wasting thing. icecold1 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not funny, it is sockpuppetry. I beg to differ your statement "this just show that anyone can create many user id as he/she likes it". You are very strongly discouraged to have socks if you are not making constructive edits. If you think straw polls are stupid and a waste of time, don't vote. It's as simple as that. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, I'm a student from RJC that just happened to come across this talk page. I hope whoever is involved will consider my viewpoint :) For whoever thinks that I'm one of you guys impersonating another student, I'm certainly not any of you. Need proof, please contact me at zwirrelen@gmail.com and be polite, because I'm a girl. So there.

Personally, I feel that the Annabel Chong issue has absolutely no place in the RJC wiki. Maybe for RGS, but certainly not in RJC. Not many people save nymphomaniacs would even keep bringing up the Annabel Chong issue. Why put it under the RJC wiki?

As for whether the Wee Shu-Min incident should be included, I do not think it was such an important issue that rocked RJC enough for it to warrant mention. However, I can understand your desire for controversy. A question. If it is mentioned, where? I do not think the way it was mentioned before it got deleted i.e. 'produces students like...' reflects very well on the author. Whoever wrote that shows an innate bias against the school. I thought wiki contributors were supposed to be objective in their writing. Hence, I request that whoever wrote that rephrase it to something more neutral like 'RJC, as is commonly associated with the more prestigious institutions in Singapore, has had its share of controversy. Recently, student Wee Shu-Min was accused of being insensitive because of remarks she made on her blog that were perceived to be elitist... -add whatever you want, though dont go on and on and on about it, its only ONE incident and the hype is pretty much almost all over-.' Is that okay? It's a compromise which I hope will resolve this issue.

For any RJC students that may be here, RJC is not responsible for the behaviour of its students, since they are old enough. One incident by Wee Shu-Min is not going to easily tear down the image of the school. So dont worry. For whoever fought so badly for the controversy to be included, I dont see why it warrants such a bloody battle for inclusion. I sincerely hope that your motive is not a smear campaign. But since you want it so so badly, at least present it objectively. RJC isnt going to suffer just because of your one-sentence inclusion.

It is not the school which maketh the student. It is the student himself which decides what sort of image he wants to project of himself. When the student behaves badly, the behaviour is attributed to the student himself. However, somehow, when the student is from a popular school, the public keeps drawing attention to the school name.

I'm assuming that whoever wants to include WSM is not from RJC. From your behaviour here, what do you think others will think of you? Should I press you to reveal your (former) school? I leave you to decide whether your behaviour here so far has cast a favourable light on you or your school. I shall not be judgmental here.

The rest of you (including RJC students), cool down. Getting angry is futile, especially on the net. Take it as a compliment that some people want so desperately to include this controversy because RJC is, after all, famous.

I hope you all can resolve this issue peaceably. Dont make a fool of yourselves for outside spectators >_<

Sincerely, zwirrelen (Class of 2007)

---

Ah, the gender immunity clause. :)

Seriously speaking though, thank you for your post. It isn't a simple matter of just letting people who dislike the school to do their best, however. We need to adhere to Wikipedia's policies as to what should or should not remain on the article. My personal opinion is that the issue belongs more on the Wee Siew Kim article than on the RJC one; but your compromise seems one of the most reasonable we've had so far, if any mention at all is to be made on the article. -ryand 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you RyanD. I do agree, and did mention in my above post, that it is not merely a silly issue of whether we should write things that would appear to defame RJC. It is a matter of wiki contributors being objective, informative, and RELEVANT. The WSM issue can hardly be called relevant. 'RJC has also produced students like' President's Scholars. These are also reported about widely in Singapore.

Hence, I issue a challenge. Whoever writes on WSM (on the basis that the issue is relevant), please also write on all other incidences where RJC was featured in the papers. Which incidents qualify? ANY newspaper report that includes the phrase 'a student of RJC' warrants inclusion.

Thank you, and happy compiling.

-zwirrelen :)

---

I think there are a few points I would like to point out over here.

1) The intention of putting WSM onto RJC page is to present the whole truth. What zwirrelen written is valid, that "ANY newspaper report that includes the phrase 'a student of RJC' warrants inclusion", which is what people like ryand are doing already. This come back to the old issue of you write yours and I write mine.

2) By writing WSM issue onto this page, while the main objective is to tell the whole truth, the other objective is to draw out people from RJC so that they can say some things which reflect the character of those students. And true enough, we can see that those students :

i) plant words into other people's mouth - "Wikipedia is based on consensus, and you claim to respect that consensus (in no where in the talk page I said that I repect that consensus, I said that I respect the contribution of others by not deleting others contribution)"

ii) accuse others of being bias without checking the facts - "By putting the Annabel Chong segment (totally irrelavant information) up only here, and I wonder why not on the RGS page( it is already on the RGS page, if you care to go to RGS page and check it out under notable Alumnae, thanks to your fellow RJC student RyanD who argue very hard in the RGS talk page to get Annabel Chong's name inserted)"

iii) out to attack others but cannot stand up to the same - eg, ryand insisting of putting Annabel chong into RGS page but yet detest people putting WSM issue on RJC's page

iv) intend to do a whitewash by blocking others to put WSM issue onto the RJC page

v) only intent to discuss if it is according to their view - "One, it was badly-formatted, was a blatant copy-and-paste off the Wee Siew Kim article, and it was placed in an inappropriate section of the article (whether it is appropriate or not is not up to you to decide). This could have been easily remedied (but instead you chose the easy way out by just deleting others contribution)" , "if In that case, please respect the current consensus (anyway, since I disagree, there is no consensus) that a) your edit should not stay on the article and b) that we should discuss the issue before any further edits are made (again, did you discuss first before you delete my contribution? No, you did not, you simply just revert the contribution without discussion)."

vi) admitting of being "elites" - "As for the Wee Shu Min incident, if you are trying to express any unhappiness about us "elites" ( I have nothing against RJC, but just trying to present the whole truth) in RJC, please do it somewhere else like on a blog or something, where you are totally entitled to do what you want, and of course fully responsible (for the same argument, if you really have to maintain the "perfect image" of RJC, then you can also put it up on your own blog where you are totally entitled to do what you want). "

although my plan was sort of cut short by zwirrelen's remark, which is a piece of sensible writing and therfore reflects the good teaching she receive from the teacher she has 9the reason why I say the teacher and not the school is because if as what zwirrelen said, the bad behaviour is due to the student himself, then it also follows that good behaviour is due to student themself. But I am more incline to attribute that to the teacher rather than the student himself), but by and large, the world can now judge for themself what kind of students we have.

3) zwirrelen's remark about writing something to "defame" RJC - let me point out that the word "defame", according to the definition by wiktionary,is "it is to try to diminish the reputation of; to publish a libel (about)", and "libel" means "To defame someone, especially in a manner that meets the legal definition of libel. " and in the legal definition of libel, one of the elements must be that the things writen is untrue. Needless to say, the WSM case is true - she is a student of RJC, and she did say all those things, and she was slamed by people over her words.Therefore, if something is of a defamatory nature, one can sue for libel.Hence, if the person chose not to sue, then he/she is admitting that whatever wirtten is not defamatory. And if this is the case, please do not use the word "defame".

4) By the way, if WSM is from other school, whether is HJC, JJC, TJC, NYJC, etc., I will do the same.

icecold1 06:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ha... thanks for reminding me about the RGS. It was so long time ago, ;). Ryan, the reason why WSM is removed from RJC is the same reason as why AC should be removed from the RGS article. --Vsion 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been a long time, Vsion :) On hindsight I see your point of view now, and I'll admit I made many hazy and dubious arguments on that issue, but I stand by the fact that Annabel Chong merits her place on the Notable Alumni list. Nonetheless, that issue can be brought up on the RGS talk page again if need be! I hope we can put it behind us and work on this issue instead. -ryand 08:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ha ha, what a guy ryand is, try to attack others by inserting Annabele Chong into RGS page, but yet now his school is being done the samething, he wanted to avoid the issue and have the cheek to ask others to "work together". Vision, I am not sure about you, but if it is me, I would not give a damn to him. Now, the word "notable", according to the definition in Longman dictionary of comtemporary English, it mean "deserving to be noticed or given attention; important or excellent; outstanding: notable event/a notable improvement/Most of the directors are men, but Ms Parker is a notable exception." Thus it can be seen here that the word notable is used in a positive manner. I am not sure how a porn star, however famous, can be notable. Nevertheless, I leave it to you guys to sort it out. Anyway, once again, it just show that there is some double standard here by some people.icecold1 13:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever revert my edition, please do not do that again as I think this is the compromise we worked out here. This just reinforce the perception of my observation above. 121.6.55.169 07:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm the one who reverted your edit, but that was before I realize who Ryan is. This is getting very interesting. Frankly, you guys could have been buddies. :D --Vsion 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Icecold1 - regarding your various points about my terrible hypocrisy, I believe that the two issues are different for a couple reasons:

• Firstly, all I did on the RGS article was to add Annabel Chong to the Notable Alumni section on the RGS article. This was because I believed (and still believe) that she was notable enough to be included on the list. I did not add copious amounts of POV information in the lead of the article , blank out several large portiosn of the article, as well as add information about another controversial figure completely unrelated to the school - all of which you did.

*With regard to your above point, please note that :

a) because you blan out my edit, I had given you warning about it that if you keep on blanking out my edit, I will have no choice but to do the same, so you asked for it; b) since you use the excuse of not knoowing what to do with WSM, I inserted that to solve your problem, you cannot just use such lame excuse to avoid the issue; 3) as for "notable", see my point above. icecold1 13:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Secondly, there were two major sides regarding the Annabel Chong issue. Some editors felt that she should be included, some felt that she should not. While Vsion and I were the more vocal (and heated) editors in that dispute, there was a genuine lack of consensus as to what to do. In this case, however, you alone went against the consensus of multiple editors, disregarded requests to stop readding your edit until a decision was reached as to what to do with the information, and utilized sockpuppetry to give the illusion of support for your stand.

With regard to your point on sockpuppetry, I admit that it was my mistake as at that time, I am not aware that there is such a guideline. Then on your point of readding my edit, I had already mentioned previously that since I am not agreeable, then there is no consensus. Also, why not leave my version on until a consensus is reached? In the AC case, since there is no conesensus as you said, why not leave Annabel Chong out untill a consensus is reached. Therefore, it seems to me that you are just imposing your view on others, which confirm my point (v) above. 121.6.39.73 15:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, my personal editing history has nothing to do with this dispute. You claim your main objective is to tell the whole truth. That's fine; if that's the case, go on and take up zwirrelen's challenge and include all instances in which RJC has been featured in the papers. That would satisfy your desire of seeing the Shu-min issue on the article, while at the same time not giving it undue weight. If you need help with doing so, ask for help on talk. We can work together to make the article a better one. On the other hand, if your second objective as stated by yourself is to "draw out people from RJC so that they can say some things which reflect the character of those students", then I suggest you either abandon that objective or stop editing Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia policy states two things: a) Wikipedia is not a battleground, and b) do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. There are far better ways to see RJC students make a fool of themselves than provoking them on Wikipedia pages (try this, for one). What you're doing is not just against Wikipedia policy; it's also a bad idea. If you intend to contribute constructively on Wikipedia, you have to follow the rules or be blocked, it's that simple. -ryand 09:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, as I mentioned that my plan was cut short, I will not bother to do that again, unless, of course, if there are others who want to get involved further, then I would have to reply. 121.6.39.73 15:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Does it mean that if I take up zwirrelen's challenge , my version of WSM will stay? if that is the case, I will take up the challenge. The challenge will have no time limit, and therefore my version of WSM will remain there forever.icecold1 13:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• sorry, Vision, do not know what you are talking about. By the way, is ryand now trying to back off from what he agreed (or seems to agree) about adding WSM in a controversy page? If you are, it just goes on to show what type of charater you have - as per point (iii) and (iv) above, haha.. icecold1 08:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstood my earlier statement. I said that zwirrelen's compromise was "the most reasonable we've had so far, if any mention at all is to be made on the article". I believe the issue of whether "any mention at all is to be made on the article" is still up in the air. -ryand 09:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for the source. Of all the JC page that I went to, only RJC uses the adjective "prestigious", wonder is that a POV statment? icecold1 09:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Of all the articles about physicists, only Albert Einstein's has the claim of being the "greatest physicist of all time". Truth ≠ POV. If the other JCs can find a source and cite their references, I don't see why it shouldn't be on their articles. -ryand 09:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Icecold1, this talk page does not exist for users to discuss the subject of the article. It exists for editors to discuss changes to the article. That said, I have just removed your edit to the article directing users to discuss the controversy on the talk page and replaced it with the {{controversial-article}} template. -ryand 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ha ha, if Truth ≠ POV, then what is the problem in inserting WSM into this page?icecold1 13:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I begin answering your points, could I request that you please keep all future responses in a single post, at the bottom of the page? It would make the talk page a lot tidier and the arguments a lot easier to follow. That said, here goes:

• Firstly, my offer to work together was an effort at being civil. Perhaps you should read WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA; discussion on this page would proceed a lot more smoothly if you did.
• Secondly, the word "notable" can in fact be used in a negative manner. Any linguist could tell you that. Linguistics aside, Wikipedia has its own definition of notability; see WP:N.
• Thirdly, there was no consensus on the Annabel Chong issue because Vsion had one stand, whereas Slashme and I had another. Neither side could agree on what to do. However, there is consensus on this issue, because Vsion, Sengkang, Fiveless, Terence Ong, Richardlu yy, b3virq3b, numerous IP users and myself have all reverted your edits or requested that you stop readding your edit. If there is no consensus whether or not Wee Shu-min should be in the article, there is at least consensus that you should stop re-adding your edit until a consensus is reached.
• Fourthly, your argument that "because you blan out my edit, I had given you warning about it that if you keep on blanking out my edit, I will have no choice but to do the same, so you asked for it" is a child's argument.
• Fifthly, "The challenge will have no time limit, and therefore my version of WSM will remain there forever". ... I. I have nothing to say. You know what, I give up. You can have the article. I'm tired of trying to make Wikipedia not suck. Add whatever you like to it. It's the free encyclopedia, after all. You win. -ryand 15:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• I think this WSM thing has been blown a little out of proportion.
  • Icecold1: I know where you're coming from, but if you must include a section on WSM, please do it in a more encycolpaedic fashion. See WP:STYLE. As ryand has mentioned, do refer to WP:NPOV#Undue weight as well.
    • I've placed a {{content}} tag on the current "Controversy" section. If anyone wishes to expand the topic to make it more relevant to the article, please do remove the tag as you see fit. The current one liner explains nothing at all.
  • Also, please tag your comments at the bottom of the talk page, or as a new point under the current discussion, it makes the topic history easier to read
  • ryand: No personal attacks, please. As much as sockpuppetry and whatnot may be involved, do keep the argument civil.
  • Maybe if you could find a something under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents to justify your case.
• As for the article, if it is possible, please leave it to improved on by other users.
• I believe if the WSM point is reverted multiple times by multiple users on multiple IP, we have a general consensus that the point is better left out. Perhaps this may seem like a drawn out argument, but it more or less works. As much as WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, bear in mind WP:NOT#ANARCHY as well. We are, hopefully, working for an encyclopedia that works

That's all I have, I guess. - fiveless 15:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

With regards to ryand's comments (which are now being archieved), my reply as follow :

1) Your offer to work together being civil, which everybody know is the case, and it is what every body is doing here (or else probably you will see all sorts of foul languages being used). However, you still did not address the issue of why it should be your version that remains until a consensus is reached? By always insisting that your version should be the standing version until a consensus is reached, I am not sure if it is the "consensus" way. So why not delete AC from RGS page until a consensus is reached?

2)Thanks for pointing out that "notable" can be used in a negative way, I learned something new today. Do you care to give me the name of the linguist?

3) Back to my point above, since there is no consensus on AC case, then why not delete AC from RGS page until a consensus is reached? You keep on arguing that there is a consensus on WSM issue, but as I said, as I disagree, there is no consensus, not sure if wikipedia has a guideline as to how many percentage of the group agree before it is considered having consensus? Anyway, we had now put WSM as into a contraversy section. And since no other editor dispute it (so far), can I assume that this current version stand?

4) You said that my argument about "because you blan out my edit, I had given you warning about it that if you keep on blanking out my edit, I will have no choice but to do the same, so you asked for it" is a child's argument, well, I am quite sure that the person that started the act is more childish. Anyway, you still did not repsond to my point of why it is alright for you to delete others contribution then ask for a discussion, why not ask for a discussion before you delete the contribution? How would you like it if I delete AC from RGS page now, and then say "let's discuss" but at the mean time, AC name is out of RGS page? So please do not have double standard.

5) As for the challenge, remember that it is zwirrelen that first issued it, and you follow up with the same challenge. I am now merely taking up the challenge. So now you want to back away from this? I am fine. icecold1 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is getting lame. Adding Annabel Chong and Wee Shu Min (as blogger) to the notable (not positively famous/popular!) alumni section will do the job. Their subsequent individual articles will speak for themselves. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks diablo. However, since WSM is still a RJC student (unless she has graduated), she cannot be considered an alumni (or am I wrong?). icecold1 02:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Considered graduated, just finished 'A' levels. - Mailer Diablo 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, then it solved the problem, although finishing the "A" level does not mean that she will pass the exam and not repeat her "A"s. icecold1 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• If RJC decides to ever take her back, we can always tweak the article. (After all, it's a Wiki!) ;) - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. icecold1 02:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mailer diablo, saw your edit, but I think while AC was a former student of RGS, she is not from RJC. icecold1 02:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, my bad! AC's from HCI. Must have mixed up RGS with RJC. Thanks for fixing that. - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

think the current insertion of WSM under notable alumni is perfectly acceptable now. thsi is just my opinion of course :) -zwirrelen

As do I. Interestingly enough, that option wasn't available at the start of the dispute because she was still a student. -ryand 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that a "consensus" has been reached. icecold1 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)