![]() | Disneyland with the Death Penalty has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 28, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "
Disneyland with the Death Penalty" became a famous description for
Singapore (pictured) following the 1993 publication of
William Gibson's article of the same name? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"reactions of Gibson's sort implicitly withold the intelligent use of the attainments of modernity from those who are not its natural descendents."
Can someone put this in plain English, please? If Singapore citizens aren't "natural descendants of modernity" (did they live on the Moon for the last 200 years?), then who they descend from? NVO ( talk) 12:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I will review. @ harej 10:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Namaste, harej, and thank you for the swift review. I'll respond to the issues you have raised by topic area; if you would prefer threaded discussion please feel free to move my comments to the appropriate places.
Thanks again for the review, and I look forward to your replies. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The second opinion always comes across harsh but it is not meant to be. Overall I think the author did a great job and should be proud. All of the suggestions above are easy fixes and will improve the article which is a big part of this process. Cptnono ( talk) 08:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
So, any outstanding issues chaps? Skomorokh, barbarian 10:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Great thanks to Cybercobra, Ray, Jack and especially harej and Cptnono for all the helpful commentary and support – it's remarkable to have so much constructive feedback and advice on such an article! Mahalo, Skomorokh, barbarian 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't this article's definition of Singapore qualify it as fascist? I mean that entirely in the serious way, not as the epithet. I think it at least deserves to be in the 'See Also' section. Ursus Lapideus ( talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Back in 1993 this issue of Wired was named issue 1.4, not 1.04 as it is presently known as on the Wired website. For proof I scanned in the first content page of the issue. SpeakFree (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the difference between the two contents? They sound similar. 123.243.68.243 ( talk) 08:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
How can William Gibson have made any conclusions about the current state of 21st century Singapore in 1993? Nil Einne ( talk) 02:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
From this article: "...and cited the accusation of Singapore-based British academic John Phillips that Gibson 'fails to really think [his critiques] through'"
This article links to a John Phillips who died in 1987. -- Marcus Schätzle ( talk) 12:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disneyland with the Death Penalty. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Disneyland with the Death Penalty. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
As this article had received quite a lot of critical reception both negatively and positively over the decades since its release, I'm adding the word controversial to the article to reflect that. In addition, the last sentence in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV, but instead of removing it I've added a citation tag as it's possible that it was included in the article, though it can't be proven at this current point due to how archaic and outdated the article has become since its publication in 1993. Lastly, I don't think this article no longer fits the criteria of GA and should be reassessed, 11 years is a long time. I await other viewpoints from other editors. Feinoa ( talk) 09:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding the word controversial to the article to reflect that- for this we require citations in due weight that have recognized that the article is controversial. Could you find some citations for this? What you are doing here is termed as original research.
In addition, the last sentence in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV- I would like to know how it violates NPOV.
I've added a citation tag as it's possible that it was included in the article- in that case would you go through all the citations in the article and let me know if you are very sure there is absolutely no citation for this.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 09:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Feinoa, your edit [1] also removed an image. Would you explain why it was removed?-- DreamLinker ( talk) 09:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Feinoa In your edit, [2] you tagged
He finds the selection in music stores and bookshops unrelentingly bland, musing whether this is partially attributable to the efforts of the Undesirable Propagation Unit (UPU), one of several state censorship agencies.
as citation needed. As this is a summary of the article itself, it can be verified from the article text. Here is the actual text from Gibson's article
Although you don't need Mormons making sure your pop is squeaky-clean when you have the Undesirable Propagation Unit (UPU), one of several bodies of official censors
.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 09:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The sentence - "Though Gibson's first major piece of non-fiction, the article had an immediate and lasting impact. The Singaporean government banned Wired upon the publication of the issue, and the phrase "Disneyland with the death penalty" became a byword for bland authoritarianism that the city-state could not easily discard." How is that not original research and someone's personal opinion? And there's so many issues with the article. Looking at the edit history they seem to be a lot of conflict about it too. This is what you call a good article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3959.647.3471.5366a ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Reiterating my edit summary and further as it seems like HaeB (based from above) is policing this article according to their biased views – I'm going to need elaboration on what's "misleading" about these –
In conclusion, who's actually misleading who? I hope this clarifies any doubts. Unless all these questions are properly answered, I can only assume subsequent reverts are one of unjustified hostility to other users due to their own personal bias and views, therefore violating the core principles of Wikipedia. I can see that based on the edit history that this has gone on for far too long with no end in sight. Thank you for reading.
Regards, 183.90.36.39 ( talk) 08:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mostly ones that were addressed above.
References
Since these articles are an attack on Singapore, it is ironic that the real Disneyland is in California—whose repressive penal code includes the death penalty
-- 183.90.37.65 ( talk) 07:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Do allow a non-involved editor to see through this edit request, it's obvious that the decline was definitely baseless, filled with accusations and not assuming good faith as none of these requests are vandalism or unreasonable and that the user was also previously involved in this article, reverting a contribution.
References
Since these articles are an attack on Singapore, it is ironic that the real Disneyland is in California—whose repressive penal code includes the death penalty
-- 183.90.37.65 ( talk) 08:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Wired is and was never banned in the country. That should be removed.Wrong. Please cite a source which claims "Wired was never banned in Singapore". We have sources which show that Wired was indeed banned [5], [6], [7] (alternate link [8]). There are more available in the archives.
William Gibson is an American-Canadian and his nationality should be mentioned in the leadNo. There is no specific need for this as long as the author has an article. To Kill a Mockingbird and A Christmas Carol don't mention the author's nationality.
Italicization of the article name as it's a major non-fictionThis is also a common phrase now, so it's debatable if it really should be italicised.
Mentioning when this article was actually written (not the publication) in the lead (1993).I am not sure what you mean by "when this was actually written". We only have reliable citations for the publications dates and that is already mentioned. The common practice for literary works is to usually mention publication dates.
Mentioning that the actual Disneyland locations in California and Florida, where Capital punishment are actually legal, alludes ironyWe need to go by due weight and avoid editorialising (as someone mentioned earlier). The content in question is already there in the article, but it's not "weighty" enough to be in the lead.
This was explicitly mentioned by Peter Ludlow in his book ("Since these articles are an attack on Singapore, it is ironic that the real Disneyland is in California—whose repressive penal code includes the death penalty") and Rem KoolhaasI checked the Ludlow source and it was a short footnote in the index (not the actual text). There is no mention of this article in the text of Ludlow's book ( HaeB, thank you for noticing this). It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. The source is so weak that in my opinion this shouldn't even be added to the body. As for Rem Koolhaas, I wasn't able to find any mention of California or Florida from my searches, although he does offer a good critique about other aspects.
![]() | Disneyland with the Death Penalty has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 28, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "
Disneyland with the Death Penalty" became a famous description for
Singapore (pictured) following the 1993 publication of
William Gibson's article of the same name? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"reactions of Gibson's sort implicitly withold the intelligent use of the attainments of modernity from those who are not its natural descendents."
Can someone put this in plain English, please? If Singapore citizens aren't "natural descendants of modernity" (did they live on the Moon for the last 200 years?), then who they descend from? NVO ( talk) 12:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I will review. @ harej 10:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Namaste, harej, and thank you for the swift review. I'll respond to the issues you have raised by topic area; if you would prefer threaded discussion please feel free to move my comments to the appropriate places.
Thanks again for the review, and I look forward to your replies. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The second opinion always comes across harsh but it is not meant to be. Overall I think the author did a great job and should be proud. All of the suggestions above are easy fixes and will improve the article which is a big part of this process. Cptnono ( talk) 08:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
So, any outstanding issues chaps? Skomorokh, barbarian 10:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Great thanks to Cybercobra, Ray, Jack and especially harej and Cptnono for all the helpful commentary and support – it's remarkable to have so much constructive feedback and advice on such an article! Mahalo, Skomorokh, barbarian 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't this article's definition of Singapore qualify it as fascist? I mean that entirely in the serious way, not as the epithet. I think it at least deserves to be in the 'See Also' section. Ursus Lapideus ( talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Back in 1993 this issue of Wired was named issue 1.4, not 1.04 as it is presently known as on the Wired website. For proof I scanned in the first content page of the issue. SpeakFree (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the difference between the two contents? They sound similar. 123.243.68.243 ( talk) 08:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
How can William Gibson have made any conclusions about the current state of 21st century Singapore in 1993? Nil Einne ( talk) 02:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
From this article: "...and cited the accusation of Singapore-based British academic John Phillips that Gibson 'fails to really think [his critiques] through'"
This article links to a John Phillips who died in 1987. -- Marcus Schätzle ( talk) 12:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disneyland with the Death Penalty. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Disneyland with the Death Penalty. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
As this article had received quite a lot of critical reception both negatively and positively over the decades since its release, I'm adding the word controversial to the article to reflect that. In addition, the last sentence in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV, but instead of removing it I've added a citation tag as it's possible that it was included in the article, though it can't be proven at this current point due to how archaic and outdated the article has become since its publication in 1993. Lastly, I don't think this article no longer fits the criteria of GA and should be reassessed, 11 years is a long time. I await other viewpoints from other editors. Feinoa ( talk) 09:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding the word controversial to the article to reflect that- for this we require citations in due weight that have recognized that the article is controversial. Could you find some citations for this? What you are doing here is termed as original research.
In addition, the last sentence in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV- I would like to know how it violates NPOV.
I've added a citation tag as it's possible that it was included in the article- in that case would you go through all the citations in the article and let me know if you are very sure there is absolutely no citation for this.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 09:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Feinoa, your edit [1] also removed an image. Would you explain why it was removed?-- DreamLinker ( talk) 09:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Feinoa In your edit, [2] you tagged
He finds the selection in music stores and bookshops unrelentingly bland, musing whether this is partially attributable to the efforts of the Undesirable Propagation Unit (UPU), one of several state censorship agencies.
as citation needed. As this is a summary of the article itself, it can be verified from the article text. Here is the actual text from Gibson's article
Although you don't need Mormons making sure your pop is squeaky-clean when you have the Undesirable Propagation Unit (UPU), one of several bodies of official censors
.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 09:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The sentence - "Though Gibson's first major piece of non-fiction, the article had an immediate and lasting impact. The Singaporean government banned Wired upon the publication of the issue, and the phrase "Disneyland with the death penalty" became a byword for bland authoritarianism that the city-state could not easily discard." How is that not original research and someone's personal opinion? And there's so many issues with the article. Looking at the edit history they seem to be a lot of conflict about it too. This is what you call a good article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3959.647.3471.5366a ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Reiterating my edit summary and further as it seems like HaeB (based from above) is policing this article according to their biased views – I'm going to need elaboration on what's "misleading" about these –
In conclusion, who's actually misleading who? I hope this clarifies any doubts. Unless all these questions are properly answered, I can only assume subsequent reverts are one of unjustified hostility to other users due to their own personal bias and views, therefore violating the core principles of Wikipedia. I can see that based on the edit history that this has gone on for far too long with no end in sight. Thank you for reading.
Regards, 183.90.36.39 ( talk) 08:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mostly ones that were addressed above.
References
Since these articles are an attack on Singapore, it is ironic that the real Disneyland is in California—whose repressive penal code includes the death penalty
-- 183.90.37.65 ( talk) 07:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Do allow a non-involved editor to see through this edit request, it's obvious that the decline was definitely baseless, filled with accusations and not assuming good faith as none of these requests are vandalism or unreasonable and that the user was also previously involved in this article, reverting a contribution.
References
Since these articles are an attack on Singapore, it is ironic that the real Disneyland is in California—whose repressive penal code includes the death penalty
-- 183.90.37.65 ( talk) 08:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Wired is and was never banned in the country. That should be removed.Wrong. Please cite a source which claims "Wired was never banned in Singapore". We have sources which show that Wired was indeed banned [5], [6], [7] (alternate link [8]). There are more available in the archives.
William Gibson is an American-Canadian and his nationality should be mentioned in the leadNo. There is no specific need for this as long as the author has an article. To Kill a Mockingbird and A Christmas Carol don't mention the author's nationality.
Italicization of the article name as it's a major non-fictionThis is also a common phrase now, so it's debatable if it really should be italicised.
Mentioning when this article was actually written (not the publication) in the lead (1993).I am not sure what you mean by "when this was actually written". We only have reliable citations for the publications dates and that is already mentioned. The common practice for literary works is to usually mention publication dates.
Mentioning that the actual Disneyland locations in California and Florida, where Capital punishment are actually legal, alludes ironyWe need to go by due weight and avoid editorialising (as someone mentioned earlier). The content in question is already there in the article, but it's not "weighty" enough to be in the lead.
This was explicitly mentioned by Peter Ludlow in his book ("Since these articles are an attack on Singapore, it is ironic that the real Disneyland is in California—whose repressive penal code includes the death penalty") and Rem KoolhaasI checked the Ludlow source and it was a short footnote in the index (not the actual text). There is no mention of this article in the text of Ludlow's book ( HaeB, thank you for noticing this). It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. The source is so weak that in my opinion this shouldn't even be added to the body. As for Rem Koolhaas, I wasn't able to find any mention of California or Florida from my searches, although he does offer a good critique about other aspects.