Talk:Pritam Singh (Singaporean politician)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pritam-singh-feb-28.jpg

A better photo?
The photo of Pritam Singh should be updated with a clearer, more recent picture. - Hongsy (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the issues with this (and any other photo on Wikipedia) is that photos hosted at Wikimedia Commons have to be copyright-free or self work. This means that we cannot just take any picture off the internet like from the Straits Times or CNA. One option we can consider is to ask the Worker's Party to release a press kit with portraits of their politicians under a free license. Otherwise, someone will have to take a photograph of them at a rally and then specifically upload it to Commons under a free license. This will probably take until 2025, though. Mount2010 (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pritam Singh.jpeg.jpg

Abandoned user draft
User:Daunkesom/sandbox is an abandoned user draft with an additional section for this article from 2015, which may yet have usable info or citations. Please would an interested editor assess the material there, incorporate what is useful, and leave a note here when done. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Singh's title
Hello, do note that Singapore does not use the title of 'The Right Honourable', would you have a source to say otherwise? Seloloving (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Photographs
The following photographs of Pritam Singh have been uploaded to Commons:

Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (File:Pritam Singh Singapore 1.jpg)
 * (File:Pritam Singh Singapore 2.jpg)
 * (File:Pritam Singh Singapore 3.jpg)
 * (File:Pritam Singh Singapore 4.jpg)
 * (File:Pritam Singh Singapore 5.jpg)

LTA abuser.
Hello. In addition, restoring the version prior to the LTA's edit would have reintroduced the massive infobox, which has been since been trimmed down since to its concise length. Seloloving (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is mistaken, I did not restore a prior version. CMD (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, but follow on edits to the infobox has been reverted, of which I have trimmed. The revert of an edit 6 months ago is unhelpful to this situation. Please do compare the two versions. Seloloving (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have compared the two versions. The only substantial change to infobox content was adding back 10 fields, which had been removed by the user. How could you have trimmed fields that had already been removed? CMD (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, upon rechecking, my edits to trim down the infobox (removal of the nationality and citizenship fields, and placing his party appointment below his MP appointment), my apologies.


 * But nevertheless, the current version reintroduces the Unofficial Leader of the Opposition field and places a random additional "10th Secretary-General of the Workers' Party of Singapore" above his parliamentary seat. Even if the edits were in dispute then, they have stood for nearly 6 months. If your reverts were based on WP:LTA solely because it was made by a sock, then I would disagree and say that the edits were helpful, and overtime, has gained consensus through its mere longevity on the page and not being reverted by those not involved in combating ineedtokeepforgetting.


 * If you wish to debate on merits instead, I would say I agree with the simplified infobox, without the additional de facto appointment he had, which has been described in prose in the lede. Right now, reverting the edit is in effect reintroducing the field, which I myself disagree with. The version which has stood for 6 months should be the undisputed version.Seloloving (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want to re-remove the infobox fields, please re-remove the infobox fields. I ask you not to jump straight to the revert button for one part of a series of edits by an LTA who literally vandalises source names because they have the word Malaysia in them. CMD (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * CMD, you have known me longer than that, and this is not our first interaction. Since when have I jumped into endless revert wars? I have always discussed the issue first on the talkpage. Note that I did not revert you immediately either after your revert. In any case, I have reinstated the infobox under my own name. If you are against ineedtokeepforgetting, let's not forget I myself am irritated by them and wishing they will get a life. Seloloving (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you jumped into a revert war, I said you jumped to the button. Perhaps that was intemperate of me. I have no problem with your edits, if you feel that the article benefits from the removal of the infobox fields then I support your judgement. On the question of undisputed versions however, I have found literal vandalism (not just POV pushing) that has stuck around longer than 6 months, so that sort of timeframe does not seem helpful. CMD (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My 6 months is based on how long the content removed stayed (Oct 2020 to March 2021), that's all. I agree there is no statute of limitations for vandalism and obvious POV pushing, which is why I only restored the infobox and not the full text in the lede, which I cannot vouch for. Please feel free to revert ineedtokeepforgetting elsewhere and wherever you see fit to do so, and thank you for contributing time to combat the LTA. Seloloving (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Indian/Sikh
Seloloving why did you remove the mention of the subject's Indian origin from the lead? CMD (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The exact sentence was He is the first opposition Indian/Sikh Member of Parliament before INTSF came in. This sentence is not verified in the content below, nor is there a citation for it in the lead. I cannot be sure if he's indeed the first opposition Indian Member of Parliament, nor if he's the first of Sikh faith (nor is the latter exactly relevant). As such, the sentence is original research to me; if you are able to find the necessary source to restore the sentence, please do so.


 * I had tried to find sources on Google, which shows a lot of Indian websites mentioning him as the first Indian-origin Leader of the Opposition, however, this is just nationalist posturing from India, and Singapore does not highlight his race, and nor do international outlets covering the election. Inclusion of that would be undue considering there has never been an official LO before him. Seloloving (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this isn't an INTSF thing, I've separated. I was wondering because I'd remembered coming across it in coverage, not as the first or anything, but notably as a non-Chinese leader, especially as one who does not speak fluent Mandarin. You're right though that this isn't really reflected in the body. CMD (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You may have come across news coverage on Singaporeans crossing the racial boundary to vote for a non-Chinese candidate, what more the leader of an opposition party. As for being the first non-Chinese leader, we have had J. B. Jeyaretnam before him, who served as an unofficial opposition leader. Seloloving (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Going through, there were S T Bani (representing Barisan Sosialis in 1st Parliament) and Punch Coomaraswamy (independent in 1st and 2nd Parliament). First Sikh as an opposition, albeit NMP, was Kanwaljit Soin, 1992-1996. – robertsky (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think there's two separate issues. One is racial background, one is leading the opposition. I don't think it makes sense to connect the two, as Seloloving notes they aren't connected in that way in Singaporean media, however on their own they both seem relevant. The racial background is relevant to some political coverage (and something from the Personal life section should be in the lead), and the being the first official opposition leader in Singapore is quite a milestone in Singaporean politics that is not properly conveyed in the current article. CMD (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Some issues have been raised regarding listing these in the body especially the Indian origin; while the above conversation pertains to the lead and not for mentioning these in the body, the latter is wholly valid per WP:ETHNICITY which like the above conversation is only about the leads and mentioning heritage therein (not the point of concern with the body). The article already did mention his Sikh association in the personal life section with categories also being there pointing to his Indian origin. To merely verify the latter in the body, I added a specific mention of that as well (see WP:COPHERITAGE), this is per policy not sure what the objections here are especially the unusual personal attacks of ethnonationalism as raised by a drive IP (if anything only partially listing a heritage and further dubiously stating "especially considering he is a Sikh" would fall into that). The discussion above also points to the fact both the aspects have received coverage which might not be wholly relevant for the lead per WP:ETHNICITY but indeed would warrant a mention in the body. Gotitbro (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)