Talk:Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021

NPOV
Added the NPOV tag as this article is obviously not neutral. The "Support" section is just a single opinion from Facebook, while there is a whole slew of opinions from vague "Opposition" figures. It smells like an attempt at WP:Advocacy here. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Vague opposition figures? Care to be more specific about which entries you have concerns about? Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, members of parliament? If you think that the support section needs to be added to feel free, just make sure that there are reliable sources to support the additions.  Grey joy talk 01:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PJ Thum, Kirsten Han, etc. are vague opposition figures only known for opposition, not Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders. Those are acceptable, but it should come from an independent source (e.g. a news report on their public statement). A larger concern is undue weight in the balance of "opinions", which certain editors clearly don't understand and call them "facts". --121.7.1.169 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance I have replaced the reference for Reporters Without Borders with a third party one, calling PJ Thum a "vague opposition figures only known for opposition" seems a bit of a stretch as they do seem to be a notable journalist/historian. Will look into the other raised concerns.  Grey joy talk 02:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I suppose the way I edit is rather conservative: I only add content that I am sure is well-sourced (and consequently remove those which do not have reliable sources), but maybe others are more liberal in that they add content first without concern of the quality of the source. PJ Thum's opinion is unsubstantiated, clearly extreme and attention-seeking (e.g. even RWB and Amnesty don't state it is a "coup", which is a very serious allegation) - also, I would refer to his standing as appealing to false authority, as he is not a subject matter expert on human rights (e.g. a sociologist at a legitimate university). --121.7.1.169 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In regards to Thum, you were bold and removed the entry, the removal was challenged so for now the best approach is to reach a consensus here on the talk page if he should be included here. (Probably in a new talk section as this is rapidly becoming crowded.) I can't make any additional changes to the article as it has been protected due to the content dispute, so this is a good opportunity for editors to list the exact concerns with what is and isn't in the article so that a consensus can be reached.  Grey joy talk 02:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a link, which has the rebuttal: "Basically, that I am personally going to take over Singapore, and all my colleagues have to be very concerned. And I suppose a coup means I take over from the Prime Minister... It requires a turn of mind, completely at odds with reality, and living in fantasy, to think of a coup in Singapore... So, Members can see, there is no limit to the absurdities and fantasies that some will put out. And an Oxford education in itself does not immunise one from spouting such nonsense.". It's interesting that PJ Thum can make some wild allegation in an opinionated article that gets quoted here, but the Minister's rebuttal in front of Parliament is left out. Just because a notable figure says something, it doesn't have to be quoted immediately - discretion should be exercised and in this case, it's obvious that the Home Affairs Minister is not removing the Prime Minister. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merely reporting that somebody notable had a certain opinion of the subject matter is not an endorsement of said opinion. The opinion was presented as it was, without any judgement of how extreme, ridiculous, attention-seeking, etc. it was. Readers can make their own judgements and Wikipedia is not censored. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, PJ Thum here. I just wanted to point out that my argument that it's a "coup" is laid out in a 2000 word article published here. Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees, if you're going to quote and cite me, I do hope the actual article in which I made the argument can be cited in the article. Thank you. Pjthum (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello PJ! Unfortunately appending your article would border on original research--you'll just have to excuse the South China Morning Post author (or Shan!) for not quoting you in context, if that's what you're suggesting. In any case, the page is locked at the moment. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I told him but I also raised the analogy of a bad film naturally having more negative reviews than positive ones. I tried my hardest to find more "support" statements out there, but I'm sure IP can do better....Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is textbook IDONTLIKEIT Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Says the editor who reverted my comments multiple times without responding to the article talk, and then launching personal attacks when I bring in Wikipedia policies. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

IP came out of the woodwork & is exclusively devoting his time and effort to mass removing content that was approved by multiple editors on the vague grounds of "Advocacy" and "imbalance". I don't find his arguments (if they count as such) convincing at all and such editing is clearly disruptive. Have referred him to ERRORS and I'll do so again now: go to Main Page/Errors! Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the editor is doing so in bad faith feel free to take it to the admin noticeboard, but repeatedly reverting is probably not the best approach while a conversation is still taking place on the talk page.  Grey joy talk 02:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Kingoflettuce doesn't need to. I have done it. I listed Wikipedia policies here and on the user's talk page, but was replied with "Boomer", "lmao" and "go take your ranting elsewhere". Also note that User:Kingoflettuce has breached the yet another policy - the three revert rule. Regardless of our opinions on this article, it is clear who is the one calling names and showing disinterest in Wikipedia's policies. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That's my best understanding of what the norm is when an article is currently on the Main Page so as to minimise disruption to readers (he's mass removing content that includes the approved hook fact). Alternatively, IP can ask for the hook to be pulled for whatever concerns he's been yabbering on about, I don't care. But I don't believe IP's unilateral mass removal of content is in line here. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Full protection
I’ve temporarily locked the article so the involved parties can have a chance to come to a consensus without further disruption to the article. Seek dispute resolution options like WP:3O if necessary. clpo13(talk) 02:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s been pointed out to me that this article is currently mentioned on the main page, so I’ve restored the last stable version before the dispute. This isn’t an endorsement of that version. Pressing concerns about the article can be reported at WP:ERRORS and other changes can be discussed on this talk page. clpo13(talk) 03:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This ought to be pulled from the main page. It's not becoming of Wikipedia, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" to be highlighting articles that almost literally nobody can edit.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but it's also unseemly to have a DYK hook pointing to an article where that very hook is being repeatedly removed and replaced. It's gone from the main page now, though, so hopefully everyone can get back to discussing the disputed section. clpo13(talk) 17:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)