Talk:Grace Fu

three reliable sources fulfills WP:BLP

This automatic removal reeks of paranoid COI. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

don't remove the redlink + more references is always good

And I agree that the SDP reference by itself might be problematic, but they only concur with the previous references. It is only to make the bulk of references stronger. There's no reason to trim a reference: more references is always good. The redlink is a future article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I also believe the current state fulfills BLP's conservative tone quite appropriately; Fu's salary is public knowledge and should be mentioned and is a fact, not tabloid opinion; all the sources used are not tabloidy in nature; furthermore it is favourable to Fu. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the SDP blog, as it is not an authoritative source. There is a limit to a number of citations you can squeeze in a paragraph. Your new interpretations of the BLP policy are very amusing, but they have no place on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no limit to the number of citations. It never hurts to have more citations. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove the wikilink. It's a historically-relevant event that has been commented upon widely in the international media. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte, I have a few issues with the manner in which you are editing:

A1. Her comments sparked public debate over "whether politicians were motivated by public service or by million-dollar salaries already deemed to be the highest in the world"

You are inserting commentary from news stories in a manner that makes this page (and other pages on Singapore politics related articles) read like the same news stories themselves. Please stop using quotes from news stories that are only attributable to the journalist(s) and not the subject or a notable person comment on the subject.

A2. Many netizens defended Grace Fu's remark as fair, supporting her position that loss of privacy and public scrutiny is a large price to pay, compared to possibly higher-paying work in the public sector.

Nowhere does the source mention "compared to possibly higher-paying work in the public sector". This shouldn't even be the public sector, it should be the private sector. What are you doing?

A3. Edit summary: trimming SDP link as a compromise; your version is inferior as it includes criticisms that violate WP:BLP. please keep the redlink

Have you read WP:BLP? Criticisms on biographies of living persons can be included as long as they are conservatively and dispassionately reported, with due regard to the prominence of the event. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a tabloid. Our articles should read like encyclopedia articles. I am being lead to believe by your actions that you are pushing your own political agenda using Wikipedia as a vehicle. Also, stop including the hidden HTML comment, it's very disruptive. Please comment below. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: public sector. That was a typo. I'll fix it. IIRC, journalists are secondary sources; quotes from people directly affected are primary sources. We favour secondary interpretation typically -- see Wikipedia:Secondary sources. The decision not to include forbid any criticisms is a compromise.

My only agenda is history, that's all. I have reason to suspect you have an agenda too, given your editing pattern for Singaporean politics articles, and rejecting any form of commentary by political observers. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)