Talk:Ah Beng
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Original research
I'm not sure why this is listed as original research. I live in Singapore and I do not see how these statements are factually incorrect. Not all social phenomena are documented in books and papers. If these primary sources do not exist, does it mean that this article is not worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia? --Rifleman 82 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- If there are no sources at all, then an article is unverifiable. Readers and editors are not expected to take the personal testimony of Wikipedia editors for things. If the article is a novel synthesis or analysis that isn't supported by what the sources actually say, or is simply something that hasn't been documented before, then it is original research. See also Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Uncle G 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have seen Wikipedia:No original research and the article as it stood did not fall under the category of according to Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? as I saw it. Perhaps the existing {{unreferenced}} was more apt. Also, I checked out the many "See also" links on the Ah Beng article and many were unreferenced as well, indicating either that standards were being applied unevenly or that nobody had come round to adding appropriate tags.
That said, I have listed two references which describe Ah Beng. The former - the Coxford Singlish Dictionary - is rather reputable as a source for Singlish words. The latter, a personal webpage, is less so, but that's the best I could find. I'm sure you understand how cultural terms can be difficult to pin down in scholarly publications. --Rifleman 82 18:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- A dictionary isn't enough of a source to hang a whole encyclopaedia article on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unless the dictionary actually states things such as "Ah bengs typically speak local slang", then all that it is a source for is the part of speech and meaning of a word, which isn't what an encyclopaedia article is about. (Encyclopaedia articles aren't about words. They are about the people/places/concepts/events/things that the words denote.)
No, standards are not applied unevenly. But yes, not every article that is unverifiable or that contains original research has been tagged. The culture of strong sourcing was absent from Wikipedia for quite some while, and we have quite a mess, and editors who don't believe that they have to include sources in articles and back up what they write with sources because they've never been held to that, as a consequence. But strong sourcing is here now.
Articles on pejorative stereotypes are original research magnets. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogan for a full discussion of this.) And whilst it is difficult to pin down scholarly publications, it is not impossible. Also, academic journal articles are not the only potential sources. See chav for how an article on a pejorative stereotype can and should be sourced. Uncle G 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I see your point. I've added more information and other cultural references backed with citations to beef up the article. If you have any decent institutional access to news databases, they should not be hard to chase down.
Do note that Singlish and the Ah Beng culture are discouraged by officialdom which may explain the little discussion in local newspapers, etc.
As an aside, I am assuming good faith in your comments and I hope you do likewise. --Rifleman 82 12:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I see your point. I've added more information and other cultural references backed with citations to beef up the article. If you have any decent institutional access to news databases, they should not be hard to chase down.
- A dictionary isn't enough of a source to hang a whole encyclopaedia article on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unless the dictionary actually states things such as "Ah bengs typically speak local slang", then all that it is a source for is the part of speech and meaning of a word, which isn't what an encyclopaedia article is about. (Encyclopaedia articles aren't about words. They are about the people/places/concepts/events/things that the words denote.)
- I have seen Wikipedia:No original research and the article as it stood did not fall under the category of according to Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? as I saw it. Perhaps the existing {{unreferenced}} was more apt. Also, I checked out the many "See also" links on the Ah Beng article and many were unreferenced as well, indicating either that standards were being applied unevenly or that nobody had come round to adding appropriate tags.
