A fact from 2006 Singapore elitism controversy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 November 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Did her comments interfere with her education? Did she get a government scholarship to study at unversity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.48.120 ( talk) 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone wants to update with her career: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shuminwee/
What on earth is a heartlander? -- Adamrush 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Disregard that, who the hell is Derek Wee? // Gargaj ( talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum! Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it a blatant copyvio to have the whole post in the article? True, the blog was taken down, but the post is extant on other sites. There's no need to expose ourselves to unnecessary liability, is there? Johnleemk | Talk 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is missing one important aspect of the matter. The feeling of the public regarding the future of Singapore if such elitists are continually becoming the leaders of the country. Thanks. -- unkx80 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just removed the following paragraph from the article:
The incident is unlikely to be an isolated case; In November 2005, there was a similiar controversy when a Primary 6 Gifted Education Programme (GEP) student wrote to Today asserting that non-GEP students (referred to as "mainstreamers") were immature and prefers segregation of classes "that lets us interact with people like us". [1] [2] It was in response to a report published days earlier on ostracism that GEP students faced, [3] in which commentators rebuked the letter as "a mentality that would please Adolf Hitler" [4] and "pitifully clueless" [5]. The GEP has since been largely superseded in favour of the Integrated Programme, and Shu Min was an alumus of the former.
I have a few reasons for doing so:
Does anyone have any opinions on what to do with this paragraph? - ryan d 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
References
It was my understanding that there was some controversy over this issue in the media, especially focusing on the paper's failure to recognise the irony behind Wee's post, taking most of it at face value. In fact, this article sounds a bit biased to me, does anyone agree? Dudboi ( talk) 08:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.139.47 ( talk) 11:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Note that the tag is supposed to lead to a debate on the merits of deleting or keeping the article on the article's talk page. The tag is not supposed to be deleted without reason. Zhanzhao ( talk) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
A fact from 2006 Singapore elitism controversy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 November 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Did her comments interfere with her education? Did she get a government scholarship to study at unversity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.48.120 ( talk) 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone wants to update with her career: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shuminwee/
What on earth is a heartlander? -- Adamrush 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Disregard that, who the hell is Derek Wee? // Gargaj ( talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum! Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it a blatant copyvio to have the whole post in the article? True, the blog was taken down, but the post is extant on other sites. There's no need to expose ourselves to unnecessary liability, is there? Johnleemk | Talk 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is missing one important aspect of the matter. The feeling of the public regarding the future of Singapore if such elitists are continually becoming the leaders of the country. Thanks. -- unkx80 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just removed the following paragraph from the article:
The incident is unlikely to be an isolated case; In November 2005, there was a similiar controversy when a Primary 6 Gifted Education Programme (GEP) student wrote to Today asserting that non-GEP students (referred to as "mainstreamers") were immature and prefers segregation of classes "that lets us interact with people like us". [1] [2] It was in response to a report published days earlier on ostracism that GEP students faced, [3] in which commentators rebuked the letter as "a mentality that would please Adolf Hitler" [4] and "pitifully clueless" [5]. The GEP has since been largely superseded in favour of the Integrated Programme, and Shu Min was an alumus of the former.
I have a few reasons for doing so:
Does anyone have any opinions on what to do with this paragraph? - ryan d 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
References
It was my understanding that there was some controversy over this issue in the media, especially focusing on the paper's failure to recognise the irony behind Wee's post, taking most of it at face value. In fact, this article sounds a bit biased to me, does anyone agree? Dudboi ( talk) 08:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.139.47 ( talk) 11:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Note that the tag is supposed to lead to a debate on the merits of deleting or keeping the article on the article's talk page. The tag is not supposed to be deleted without reason. Zhanzhao ( talk) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)