Talk:Goh Chok Tong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Goh Chok Tong is part of SGpedians' Resources An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-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.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Can somebody please find out who on earth Mrs. Goh Chok Tong is? Google throws up frustrating results. --Johnleemk 08:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Response by User:203.124.2.55: It is MR Goh Chok Tong, NOT MRS!!!!!!!!!

User: 203.124.2.55, please do not erase other people's postings. And please understand that we do not have the info for Mrs. Goh Chok Tong, the wife of Goh Chok Tong. -- PFHLai 09:40, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Seemed like the pages of the leaders of Singapore has been vandalised..can anybody do something bout it?

Contents 1 deleted vandalism 2 Page protection 3 Slapping Incident? 4 November 26? 5 Material re. Islam 6 Expansion of this page

[edit] deleted vandalism

a vandal added this

In his National Day Speech 2003, he called all Singaporeans who emigrated from Singapore as "Quitters"; to abuse them without telling the world that his own daughter has emigrated from Singapore to the UK, and so too, is a "Quitter"!

but it has some truth if I remember. It should be NPOVed and returned to the article (see his proceeding edits on other pages to understand why I simply revert) Mozzerati 14:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

It's the truth but not the whole truth. Apparently, his daughter married an Englishman and hence moved abroad to stay with her husband (hence his grandchildren on that side are Eurasians), but not for any other reason like economic gains or what not. It's very different from what he was criticizing during his speech. Mandel 08:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a new template, rather than the syntax template which is no longer accepted. I modified it from Tony Blair.

Also, the fact that Goh is currently married to Tan Choo Leng. They have a son, Jin Hian, and a daughter, both of whom are twins. It was said that they are adherents of the Methodist denomination of Christianity since their teenage days. should not be excluded. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should be fille with as much relavant information as possible in a presentable way, so please do not remove it, unless you explain first.

Tan 15:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

My edits

1. The reason for needing a new template is obscure at best (what is a "syntax template", and why is it no longer accepted? No longer accepted by whom?).
2. The image and caption: the image should be a thumb, and the caption is unnecessary given the heading of the box.

1. The new paragraph: the reference to twins was ungrammatical (of course they're both twins — could one be a twin and the other not?), and either one gives both names (which is unnecessary I'd have thought or neither. The reference to their religion is not only irrelevant, but apparently something that was said by people unnamed... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Unsurprisingly, Mr Tan has reverted my edits without explaining here, or replying to my points. With regard to the brief note in his edit summary, however, where in the MoS does he find the deprecation of thumbs in side boxes? The fact that another article contains a non-thumbed photo hardly backs up his claim. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The image should not be a thumb, and there are none of the other cases in the articles of Gerge Bush, [[Tony Blair. I don't see any thumb in the images.
2. The son's name should be stated. Wikipedia is not a place to remove relavant information like this.
3. For their religion, I saw it in the local newspaper. In is not a lie.
4. Please stop stalking on my edits and ask a lot of questions. It is extremely pressurising and harassing.

tan 13:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You're again using should to mean "I want". Why is his son't name relevant to the article and not his daughter's? If you can find both, then they can be added, but adding only one looks bad. That you saw something in the newspaper isn't sufficient evidence for including it; besides, what's the relevance? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Stating about the religion of their children is from The Straits Times. Also, I had never saw a page that has a thumbed image within a template, and please standardise the page for consistency. Please don't make life hard for me.

tan 22:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure that you understand the word "relevance"; telling me where you saw the information is not explaining its relevance...
2. As for other images in templates — how many have you looked at, of the hundreds on Wikipedia? What size are the articles compared to the size of the images? This isn't a crucial point, and of the edits in question it's the one I'd be most prepared to be persuaded on, but you need to do more than say that one or two other articles do it your way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Do we need a page protection before all these madness will stop?--Huaiwei 15:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

1. I could only suggest a dictionary.
2. The son of Goh Chok Tong is Jin Hian. Both are Methodist. I have provided the best that I could, and ask other Singaporean users if you do not believe me.
3. I could only illustate to you if you are that hard headed.

The Rt Hon. Tony Blair

Image:BlairL.jpg
Appointed PM	2 May 1997
PM Predecessor	John Major
Date of Birth	6 May 1953
Place of Birth	Edinburgh, Scotland
Political Party	Labour
Constituency	Sedgefield

Can you see that there is no "thumbing" of images? See the articles of other world politicians to see their article format if you still don't understand. See how their images are sized. Never mind about the bytes matter.

Tan 23:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand Mel's stance towards the attitude towards the following facts: It was listed under Wikipedia:Request for comments/Mr Tan under the disputable act behaviour.

Goh is married to Tan Choo Leng. They have a twin son, Jin Hian, and daughter. Both of them are adherents of Methodist Christianity.

Tan 21:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the English, it's odd to say the least to give the name of one twin but not the other, and you give no proof of their religion (nor any reason to suppose that it's relevant to the article). Citing your sources doesn't mean saying: I know this &mdsh; ask other Singaporeans. Mr Tan (talk • contribs)/Chan Han Xiang (talk • contribs) needs to read Wikipedia policy more carefully. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The religion of theirs comes from The Straits Times! I came to know it when the newspaper highlighted about a little of his life.

I am sorry, I did not know the name of the other daughter. If you want to look at the name of his son, go to [1]

I still do no understand the meaning of yours for resizing the images! It seems that you are very hardheaded and immune to my explanations.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand by what you mean that citing my sources doesn't mean anything.

Tan 00:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

We cannot put that in for two reasons: 1) Why does the son have a name while the daughter remains nameless? and 2)Who are adherents of Methodist Christianity, the twins or the parents? And how is this relevant to the names of the family members? You should put this in a different paragraph, but then it would be too short, and would be in danger of being deleted. Better not put it in. Or you can clear it up a bit and put in relevant links, and then we could possibly allow you to insert that part. JMBell° 16:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I stated that I don't know the name of the daughter, but I don't see what's wrong putting up the piece of information up there.

The twins are adherents of Methodist christianity; neither did I see why Mel have been persistently reverting.

Tan 11:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

For reasons of equity, we have to put the name of the daughter, too; otherwise, remove both names. You should make it clear that the twins' religion is Methodist Christianity, but I'd suggest you follow this up with some more information because the sentence is awkward by itself (and unnecessary, too). JMBell° 12:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I shall try to further improve the grammar of the phrase.

Why are you so peculiar about equity? Is there any law that states that equity is compulsory? Thus I see no official reasons in reverting, otherwise it could be sheer vandalism.

Tan 21:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I assume that you mean "particular". Equality of treatment is an essential part of neutrality, as well as being a central aspect of decent human behaviour.

I've just reverted your latest reversion in which you'd not only replaced the clumsy clause involving "adherents of Methodist Christianity" (despite promising to improve its grammar), but had also removed a necessary apostrophe that I'd added. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems that I have done to the best that I could. Have a look.

Tan 22:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Just to let you people know, I have nominated this page for page protection.--Huaiwei 14:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slapping Incident?

The "Slapping Incident" was commented out in this article. When Goh mentioned the incident that day, it was really a bombshell!!! He must have done that after careful consideration. What do you guys know about the slapping incident? Did you heard the rumour prior to Goh's speech? Just curious. :D -- Vsion 09:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The mention in the article was too obscure to convey anything to a reader who didn't already know all about it (like me). What exactly was it? (I like the addition re Goh's son, by the way.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] November 26?

I can't believe it. In local history books and as evidenced from this website[2], Goh became PM on November 28, not 26. The same applies to Lee Kuan Yew.

Tan 12:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Material re. Islam

I've tidied the new paragraph, removing the odd syntax, and the peculiar claim that Goh "redefined Islam", but I'm still not clear what its significance is:

"After suspected Islamist threats in Singapore, Goh asked: "What is true Islam?" in one of his meetings with local Islamic religious leaders in 2004. Subsequently, Goh made a visit to Iran and met the Iranian premier, Mohammad Khatami, days before stepping down as Prime Minister."

OK, he asked "what is true Islam?" — and so? Did he give an answer? Was it strikingly original, or significant in any way? Did it have any effect on anything? And he met the Iranian "premier"; as a head of state, didn't he meet many such people? Did this meeting mean anything in particular? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I obtained the content from The Straits Times and past local television news. For this, however, I'm afraid that I could not provide the source on the Internet.

Tan 00:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You've answered a question that I didn't ask (for the source), and not the questions that I did ask. Does anyone else think that the passage above is worth including? If so, could they explain its significance, so that that can be made clear to others? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeap. It is a national issue, if you are keen enough to visit Singapore and take the initiative to examine its significance.

Also, please do not remove the fact of After subsequent suspected Islamist threats in Singapore, for this is the reason for Goh to hold this speech.

Tan 20:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

But that makes no sense (subsequent to what?), and there's no context given. Are you really claiming that the passage is appropriate because it would be understood by someone who has visited Singapore? I think that it needs to be removed in toto, until some explanation can be given; as it is, it's little more than a no sequitur. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, the local newspapers have made many reports on the local suspected Islamic threats, and I have seen it. (What is no sequitur? Use simpler definitions, please)

Tan 21:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A non sequitur is something that doesn't follow from what went before. here. there's a fairly empty couple of sentences, in which Goh is quoted as asking a question that is in itself insignificant, the significance being in the answer, which isn't given. he's then described as making the sort of visit to another country that heads of state make routineley. No context is given, no explanation of significance.

As for local newspapers reporting suspected Islamic threats... what does that have to with anything? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The passage has been expanded in a way that makes little sense in parts:

"After suspected Islamist threats in Singapore, Goh asked: "What is true Islam?" at one of his meetings with local Islamic religious leaders in 2004, in view of preventing further security threats done by suspected members of Jemaah Islamiyah. Subsequently, Goh visited Iran and met the Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami, days before stepping down as Prime Minister."

Leaving aside the English, which could be cleaned up, a number of points arise: first, the "suspected threats" is extremely vague; secondly, where they Islamic or Islamist? thirdly, the question is uninteresting out of context, and without an answer; fourthly, how did asking (or even answering) the question relate to "preventing further security threats"? fifthly, what's the relevance of the visit to Iran? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

1. There were cases of bomb threats in Yishun station in 2003 and vandalism in Arabic, which was suspected to be done by the Islamist insurgent groups.
2. The above provide the evidence that terror groups are Islamist; but the local religious groups stated above are Islamic.
3. Goh Chok Tong subsequently made a speech questioning the status of Islam after the Islamic threats.
4. He visited Iran, and subsequently visited the local mosques soon after the speech. The Straits Times reasoned that it was meant to develop Islamic relationships between Singapore abnd Iran.

1. With that, I shall try to add more points, and hopefully it will satisfy your criteria. Thanks for reminding.

Tan 14:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

More detail about the supposed threats and about what Goh said is probably all that's needed for the first part, and the second part is dealt with by what you've said here. I'll try to do something later. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, let me do it, (unless the next time you visit this page is left untouched)

Tan 21:14 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's done. If you think that what I've written is inaccurate, could you explain here rather than trying to rewrite it yourself? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of this page

This page looks very short and has lack of information, not much about him, it was once tagged as a stub, but has since been removed. The article is still the same, and no improvements have been done. Goh Chok Tong has done a very good job for Singapore, can't we write more about him than leaving it so short? Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong articles are much longer. Maybe we should write about his early political career, and more events of him during the Prime Minister of Singapore. --Terence Ong 11:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)