Talk:Raffles Girls' School (Secondary)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) 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.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Deleted section reproduced below. Reason - out of context, poor explanation, POV.

Contents

[edit] Oddities

Unique among girls schools (at least in Singapore), RGS girls cheer in an artificially low voice, instead of the screams, shrieks squeals typical of the rest. But of course, this oddity pales in comparison to CHIJ Toa Payoh's. Of course, a possibility is that they are trying to imitate their brother Rafflesians in Raffles Institution.

RGS girls also fold the sleeves of their blouses.

The significance (or otherwise) of these trivialities is left to the reader to decide.

Please feel free to edit and reinsert back into main article. Alex.tan 14:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's back there again... I will delete this section. I scarcely think that RGS students' cheering and sexual orientation are of any note. -Hmib 17:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because a fact may be uncomfortable to some does not mean that it is not true. The reality is that RGS girls *do* cheer oddly. Whether or not this is included in Wikipedia does not change the fact that it does happen. We want a neutral tone, but that does not mean we should whitewash anything that might conceivably reflect badly on the school.

Wikipedia has lots of stuff that is uncomfortable to some. Autofellatio for example. The reasons I (and others) deleted the part about cheering in an artificial voice and the part about 'crushing' seniors, are

  • non-notable. We don't care, nor do we want to know. It won't help a bit if we knew it. I could tell you about my sexual orientation, but do you want to know? Even if you do, is it notable enough to make it into an encyclopedia? (Is any of the information in here notable enough to make it into an encyclopedia? Who cares if RGS girls fold their sleeves? Who cares about half the stuff on Wikipedia?)
  • NPOV. I don't think girls from the other schools would take kindly to comments about their 'screeching'. Unless there is a video to prove it, the validity of that is in doubt.
  • the Singlish used by RGS girls does not pertain to this article. TCHS uses almost the exact same slangs (at least when I was there) so it's neither a distinguishing characteristic nor a notable characteristic. If anywhere, that should go under Singlish. Add a section called 'School slangs' if you want.

-Hmib 04:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the very least the excised information should be placed on the Talk page.

I notice the thing on people crushing their seniors has been removed. I agree that the names and details should be excised, but it *is* true (just as with cheering) that RGS girls crush their seniors (this is probably true in many other girls' schools). But I guess such unofficial information is not welcomed in Wikipedia so we shall be like a real encyclopedia and read like a press release from the school administration.

That is, incorrect. Please read WP:NOT. Feel free to include stuff that normally would not get included in an encyclopedia. We are (I think), for example, adding every town in the US. Paper encyclopedia would never have that. Furthermore, an entity like RGS would not even be considered in a paper encyclopedia, much less the sexual habits of the freshmen.
What makes that part inappropriate, in addition to what I already mentioned up there ^, is that it could possibly cause angry students/teachers/freshmen/seniors to protest at a perceived biasness. Such a fiasco has already occurred in the NYGH article, on romantic relations between NYGH and TCHS students (which, I must add, I have never been able to experience during my 3 years there, lol). Such inflammatory information, could easily turn into a minefield. Maybe I'm exaggerating stuff, but you get the gist of it, right?

If anything, you could perhaps add that section (skip the details though) to the page on Homosexuality in Singapore. -Hmib 04:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Ｉwould like to make a note here. The school administration includes the low cheering in the orientation. Forget the bashing seniors. They are constantly telling us to cheer "lowder" (lower+louder=lowder). Thus, though the oddities are not necessary, Wikipedia itself should allow it. No one will tear after you screaming, "Change that part!" In fact, we are actually proud of it. Amurila 07:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, people who don't know anything about RGS but take it upon themselves to clean up what they see as suspicious content on Wikipedia do. So I suppose it'll remain one of those things everyone knows about but is not documented anywhere. Oh well. gssq 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely this shows the notability...?
Surely this shows the notability...?

I know Miborovsky this is almost a year old but in response to your comments about tbe bridge I thought I would cite the Sketchpad again because it's at least an urban legend that propagates if it doesn't happen too often. ;-) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 13:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the NYGH talk page instead? gssq 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What bridge? Oh that bridge? Well I've walked that bridge every (school) day for 3 years and never saw anything remotely like that. ;) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Former PM Goh alluded to it: "Looking across the road at the new Nanyang Girls' High School, an idea struck me. I suggested to the Principal to hold joint activities between his boys and Nanyang Girls’. If his boys have girl friends in Singapore, that may pull them back to Singapore! But what if the girls too go overseas?" Former PM Goh Chok Tong, NDP rally speech 1999 gssq 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, fine. :D I'm overseas as I didn't have a girlfriend in Singapore. ... OK that's not true. I did, but whatever. :) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] still on cheering

What's a CMU? Alex.tan 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

CMU = Central Manpower Unit. Updating article to reflect this. B3virq3b 12:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

What is exactly wrong with RGS? Why are Singaporeans so fond of picking on the girls? I feel it is just the unique characteristics of an individual school, not oddities, so to speak of. The folding of sleeves, from what I heard, was started because initially, the old girls found the sleeves too long. Perhaps they wanted to feel cooler as the dark colour of the uniform and double layered clothing proved to be too hot for comfort. As for the low cheering, it is probably just a sort of identity that belongs to RGS. While all the other all-girls school cheer in a irritatingly high pitched voice, RGS does not. That is what sets it apart from the rest. Maybe as well known feminists, majority possess a low-pitched voice, therefore they prefer to cheer like that. Who knows? Anyway, it is pointless to keep on criticising an institution that you do not understand, simply because it is so well known and it gives you pleasure in doing so.

[edit] not on cheering

Could someone check and see if the lyrics to the school song are copyrighted? The 'chosen out of a songbook' thing makes me nervous. --InShaneee 04:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well it happens a lot with even more important songs. God Save the Queen for example. Besides the songbook should long have passed into the public domain (if it was even copyrighted) so there shouldn't be a problem. -Hmib 04:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ｐersonally, I don't really think so. I mean, we are quoting it everywhere and we sing it AND I think the lyrics are modified. So it does not really matter. As Hmib said, the songbook should long have passed into the public domain. Amurila 07:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annabel Chong

Re: "revert; never heard of her" (Annabel Chong aka Grace Quek)

Guess what? I've never heard of Lim Hsiu Mei, Lim Soo Hoon, Judith Prakash, Leaena Tambyah or Siow Lee Chin either.

At least i have heard of Siow Lee Chin thanks to her performance during the 2001 NDP.--Huaiwei 11:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have given this topic a new section of its own seeing as to how Annabel Chong is rapidly appearing and disappearing from the article. To address the issue of knowing who she is, half the *world* knows who Annabel Chong is. There was even a feature film on her. To quote Gssq, though RGS & indeed Spore might wish to forget her, the fact is that Annabel Chong's more notable/famous than >half the people on the list, and recognised internationally too. With this in mind, could the users who keep removing her from the list please state your reasons for doing so? -ryan-d 11:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

From your infor, it seems that she is a little known in the porn industry, but irrelevant to anything else. --Vsion 12:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
How so irrelevant? If Annabel Chong is "a little known" in the porn industry but irrelevant to anything else, wouldn't Corrinne May similarly be "a little known" in the music industry but irrelevant to anything else? -ryan-d 17:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
One should note that out of the fifteen women listen under the Alumni section, Annabel Chong is one of the five who are actually famous enough to merit their own Wikipedia article. -165.21.154.13 17:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
She may be considered notable by porn-fans, and there are many wikipedians practicing porn-craft, but she is irrelevant in education-related article. --Vsion 22:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The section in question has nothing to do with education, it's Notable Alumni, and Annabel Chong is one of the school's notable alumni. Her influence isn't merely restricted to the porn-arena. Back in the days when no one knew where Singapore was, three things put it on the map - Michael Fay, the ban on chewing gum, and Annabel Chong. She isn't merely one of the many porn stars out there, she was the first to have sex with 250+ men in a row. It put her on front pages on newpapers all around the world. She is, by all definitions, notable, not just by "porn-fans" but by the world in general. Again, I ask, how less relevant is the fame of a porn star as opposed to the fame of a singer or an actor? -ryan-d 05:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
If you cannot tell the difference between a porn-actress from a porn industry and a singer/actor in a general-public entertainment industry, I cannot help you. --Vsion 05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere. I have referred the dispute to Wikipedia:Third_opinion. -ryan-d 08:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I've never edited any article on Singapore, schools or pornography, but saw this on WP:3O so thought I'd offer my opinion. Annabel Chong is well known worlwide, with a quick look on Google showing over half a million hits for "annabel chong" and articles on well known mainstream news sites including CNN and the BBC. Living in England, I've never heard of any of the other alumni listed and while AC is hardly a celebrity here, her name is known. In terms of worldwide notability she probably deserves to be on that list more than anyone else who's there, and she is definitely more notable than the vast majority of people who don't have a biography on WP.
Born-again Christians and guardians of public morals may not like the idea of having a porn star listed in an article on a school, but Wikipedia is not censored so it would be wrong to exclude her on those grounds. It's also a violation of NPOV to leave her out solely because you don't approve of her when she's more notable than most/all of the people on the list. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Porn-related stuff get lots of bandwidths in Internet, Western media, etc. but that doesn't mean what Annabel is more notable than the others who are listed and who played more actual public roles than Annabel. The usual practice in all aspects of society is that porn stuff should remain in porn-related arena and kept away from mainstream. Since WP does not practice censorship, therefore her articles and others remain in WP. But still, we cannot deny that what Annabel did and what she is notable of are mainly of the prurient interests and placing her porn-related info into school article is inappropriate, lacks good taste, benefit nobody, and drive away young editors and readers. --Vsion 07:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
By all means, leave porn to the people who watch porn. But I would say that Annabel's influence extends beyond being porn-related. Her actions and behaviour have transcended that and thrown her into the mainstream. Also, I hardly think the information various editors have been trying to add to the article is "porn-related" and "inappropiate" and would "drive away young editors and readers". "Annabel Chong (born Grace Quek), web designer, artist and formerly a notorious porn star", as Slashme's edit read before you removed it, is one line of factual information that is unlikely to scar young readers for life. If anything, it provides a less porn-oriented view of the woman than previous edits have. -ryan-d 13:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, please explain what's her influence on you? --Vsion 13:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
One of interest and curiousity, being that she was once from one of the top schools in Singapore and ended up in the porn industry because of some beliefs in the feminist theory. I'm curious to know what kind of thinking inspired her little feat. However, I do not see the relevance of your question to the discussion at hand. -ryan-d 13:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the polite reply. I still don't see how someone can be notable enough to have a decent-length entry in Wikipedia but not notable to include in a list of school alumni. I just don't think that putting her name in the list counts as "placing porn-related info into the article". If people were trying to introduce text about her career into the body of the article I would consider that inappropriate, but I don't see adding her name to the list as being the same thing, or how doing so would "drive away young readers". While I think Slashme's examples of Hitler and Stalin are a bit extreme, I would also think that notable criminals would belong in a list of notable alumni if there was an article on their school (so the average shoplifter wouldn't qualify, for example, but someone like Nick Leeson would). I don't think someone has to have set a good example to qualify for the list. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

People can be notable without being worthy of imitation, and people can be influential without having a good influence. The fact remains that this article is not an advertisement for RGSS. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic article. To the general public outside Singapore, the most famous ex-student to come out of the school was Annabel Chong.

What is Annabel Chong's influence on the world? Well, she attempted (with debatable success) to use the porn industry to further the understanding of the different standards that are applied to men and women. She also used the porn industry to bring issues regarding gender issues into public debate. Although working for a period in an industry that is generally, and in many cases truthfully, regarded as degrading to women, she achieved high academic ideals. In the documentary that was made about her notorious exploits, she showed the bad along with the good, documenting the pain that she experienced when confronting her family, her old school and hence her previous "good girl" image. She also showed that while she was scarred by the experience, she engaged the traditional vices of society (drugs and porn) without being destroyed by them, and has now made a move to escape her previous notoriety by retreating into a traditional "productive" life.

She is (like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Albert Einstein) more famous than her high school itself. --Slashme 13:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You see, I was opened on this about her influence, but your statement above show that there is none, really. Her notability is restricted to what she did in porn and others' curiosity about it. Please take a look at Traci Lords, compare the two, see how Lords established her notability in the mainstream. --Vsion 14:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Many fallacies. One, my statement isn't representative of the other 8 billion + people in the world. Two, there is nothing wrong with being interested in the psychological aspect of what she did. Please read Slashme's paragraph above, there is a distinction between smut and the other aspects of Annabel Chong's influence. -ryan-d 15:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Some more information. Google search for:

  • ("Traci Lords" intellectual) — about 16,100 hits
  • ("Annabel Chong" intellectual) — about 20,900 hits

How can anyone seriously claim that "Annabel chong" is not famous when she has been written about in the New York Times on many occasions? After all, I'm famous, and I've never been featured there ;-)

--Slashme 05:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


OK, as most of the dispute now seems to center around the alumni list, I have replaced the POV tag at the top of the article with a POV-section tag at the top of the alumni list. I hope this helps to address the concerns of the "Grace Quek is not famous" crowd :-) --Slashme 06:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Schools

Is this ever going to be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools the Schools project..? -anonymous person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.59 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 October 2005

[edit] Annabel Chong (again)

It doesn't look like this is about to be resolved, so could I suggest taking it to the Wikipedia:Mediation cabal? If that doesn't suit everyone, perhaps we could ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools for their opinions? Seems pointless having people re-reverting each other. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

For editors who do not otherwise contribute to schools articles, I wonder why are they so interested in listing a porn star here? Why help the porn industry to justify their trade in the mainstream when clearly they are not? I have no objection to what they put in porn-related articles, but please leave secondary school articles alone. Annabel has also retired, why are some guys still obsess about her? For goodness sake, leave her alone and MOVE ON, please. Porn industry is NOT about fame or notability, it is about exploitation, drugs, physical abuse and HIV. If you don't believe me, do the research yourself, and see how many thousands of young girls became victims of the industry. Please face the reality and don't be fooled by the industry's self-promotion, and through your actions help them. This article is about a serious education institution, leave those things out of here. --Vsion 01:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Assuming you're referring to me, I've already said why: one of the other editors listed this article on WP:3O to try and help resolve the issue. Also, my general dislike of censorship is another reason, and this looks like censorship to me. You haven't answered my question, so let me rephrase it: is there any body of Wikipedians whose opinion you'd accept that we can put this matter to? Because it doesn't look like this issue will sort itself out and it isn't good to see users making the same reverts every day. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not censorship. The current disagreement is whether Annabel is notable in the mainstream. If she has accomplished similar to what Traci Lords did, then I would have no disagreement. My argument is that her "notability" is basically only restricted to the non-mainstream; the others counter by citing large Internet coverage and BBC and Times entertainment articles and that "they heard of her" as their reasons. I attribute these to aggressive promotion and image-manipulation by the industry, and disagree because Chong has done nothing notable (either good or bad) in the mainstream nor has her influence extends to mainstream. As for your suggestion, I need to think about it, as I never heard of Wikipedia:Mediation cabal. I don't find it pointless to do the reverts; rather I'm curious what point the others are trying to made by inserting Chong into the list. --Vsion 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The section is called "Notable alumnae". Grace Quek was without doubt an alumna of the school. The only question seems to revolve around her fame. That many people know who she is, is clearly not disputed, but what vsion seems to be claiming is that she is not famous "in the mainstream".

She was the subject of a documentary that was nominated for the grand jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival. She has been discussed (among others) in the New York Times, the Guardian, and on BBC and CNN. I read about her for the first time in a campus newspaper in South Africa. The documentary was shown worldwide. It is therefore quite unreasonable to claim that no-one outside the pornography world knows who she is. And is she only a pornstar? No. She is an accomplished academic, speaking eloquently on feminist issues. Let's compare her to (for example) Emma Yong. I can find no mention of her on the New York Times, CNN or BBC websites, and she seems to be pretty much unknown outside Singapore. As for Bukoh Mary, same story. Famous in Singapore, no doubt. Unknown elsewhere.

So, in conclusion, "Annabel Chong" is a well-known person, and an alumna of the school. Although the school might like to forget that she exists, this is not the school website. An encyclopedia is not only a collection of facts, but it must be at least a collection of facts, or it cannot be an encyclopedia. And the facts are that Grace Quek is a notable alumna of RGS. --Slashme 08:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If she is an accomplished academic and serious feminist activist, I would have no objection. But your edits say that she is only a web designer, so am I missing something here? Or are you pushing it too much? If she is an academic, please show us an academic paper, or an advocate statement, she has written? If it is true, then it should be easily proven, and I will apologize for the reverts and we just need to reword the entry. But please point to us the reference. --Vsion 08:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have reword the entry as according to Slashme's statement, and remove "notorious" since it is POV or unnecessary. I assume the references are forthcoming. --Vsion 08:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the word "academic" means different things to different people. The fact that she did graduate studies at USC makes her an accomplished academic. I never claimed that she was a published academic, or that that was the reason that she was well known. The point remains, though, that had she not had the ability to discuss her actions on an intellectual level, she would never have achieved the fame that she did from the documentary. --Slashme 13:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
According to Merriam-webster, academic is "a member of an institution of learning". Let's put that aside for a while. You also said that she "speaking eloquently on feminist issues"; so what are/were her agenda or what has/had she been advocating? --Vsion 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
(no response from others after two days) I'm surprised that the users who insist on inserting the Annabel name in the list, for whatever their reason, would on the other hand, tolerate the appalling inaccuracy in the entry, which say she is an academic when it is obvious now she is not. Apparently, you guys are not interested in the truth at all! With regards to her notability in mainstream, I'm not sure whether you are misleading others or you are the ones who were misled! --Vsion 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Like you, I was waiting for Slashme's response, but if you would take it as being not interested in the truth, that's fine by me. In response to your argument, I would note that the "appalling inaccuracy in the entry" you refer to, by which I take to mean the terms "academic" and "feminist political activist", was added by you, on November 17. The previous edit by Slashme only mentioned "web designer" and "artist". I don't presume to speak for Slashme, but personally, I've never mentioned anything about Annabel Chong being a "feminist political activist". In fact, I think the term used on Slashme's part was "speaking eloquently on feminist issues". This does not translate to being a "feminist political activist", per se. As for references, I believe the 1999 documentary on Annabel Chong has several scenes in which she speaks on feminist issues and gender roles.
From the discussion thus far, I'm of the impression that it's going to be hard to come to a compromise as is. May I suggest we take CTOAGN's advice and take the dispute to the Wikipedia:Mediation cabal? Alternatively, I could post this dispute on WP:RfC. -ryan-d 06:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Since you can't speak for Slashme, then let's focus on what you (ryan-d) wrote. You wrote:
  1. "Annabel's influence extends beyond being porn-related."
  2. Her actions and behaviour have transcended that and thrown her into the mainstream
  3. "... ended up in the porn industry because of some beliefs in the feminist theory"
  4. "It put her on front pages on newpapers all around the world."
I'm really missing something here, these were not in Annabel Chong article; so, what are the references on which you based these comments on? What newspapers whose front pages are you refering to? What feminist issues, belief or agenda did Annabel holds/held, or discuss? What are her influences to ordinary people who don't watch porn? With these statements, you are suggesting certain facts but you didn't provide the reference. So, before we bring this to another party, let's clarify the facts first. If she is/was indeed a feminist activist, then I would agree she plays a public (mainstream) role, and we probably don't need further discussion. Again, my main objection here is that her insertion is basically porn-craft, and I would withdraw if shown otherwise. If you could describe, in more specific terms, what are her influence, action or behavior in the mainstream, it would be very helpful. But seriously, you have made the above statements to support your inserting of Annabel in the list, without providing the evidence. I hope you are not making these things up, just for the sake of winning an argument (or for attacking the school). --Vsion 15:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
One by one now.
"Annabel's influence extends beyond being porn-related." Reference: A non-porn documentary produced in 1999 that provides some insights into Annabel Chong's psyche; non-porn-fans having seen the documentary; non-porn-fans having heard of her; non-porn newspapers having featured her.
"Her actions and behaviour have transcended that and thrown her into the mainstream". Reference: Mainstream newspapers having featured her, documentary shown in mainstream cinema, et cetera.
"... ended up in the porn industry because of some beliefs in the feminist theory" Reference: Her attraction to porn, and extreme porn at that, is discussed at length by herself and others. 'A classmate says she did it because she was irritated by the "reverse patriarchy" of a "feminist theory class" that she felt was stifling female sexuality. Quek says she wants "to shake people up from all these stereotypes of women as sex objects," to "be a stud." She has a missionary’s zeal, at least in her words: "I’m at the age where I think I can change something." (taken from this site).
"It put her on front pages on newpapers all around the world." Reference: I admit I was exaggerating to make a point. But the general idea is factual - she has indeed appeared in several mainstream news sources around the world for what she did. See CTOAGN's first comment on this page.
I have already mentioned on your talk page that I have no interest in attacking the school. I will repeat that again. RGS was my sister school for four years, and I have several good friends who are/were from that school. There is absolutely no reason for me to want to attack the school. Nor do I think that adding Annabel Chong's name under the alumnae section constitutes an attack. Also, I am neither a fan of porn or of Annabel Chong, and I have contributed extensively to at least two school articles other than this one. Now, can we resolve this dispute without resorting to calling each other Nazis? I think Slashme's suggestion below is fair. -ryan-d 09:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vsion, please don't take my insertion of Annabel Chong's name in the list of notable alumnae as an attack on RGS. I have no agenda in this regard.

Let me explain how I got involved in this discussion. I happened to be checking "recent changes" one day and noticed that someone had removed A.C. from the list of alumnae. I assumed that this was a whitewash, as I knew who she was (having seen the documentary in a mainstream cinema). Consequently I replaced her name on the list. Afterwards, I realized that there was some controversy on the issue, and read the talk page. I am a Wikipedia fan, not a porn fan. I didn't know who Traci Lords was until you brought her up as an example. As for A.C.'s intellectualism, In the documentary you see her taking part in the presidential debate at the Cambridge Union and a number of mainstream talk shows. It is anyone's right to form an opinion about the validity of her statements and arguments, but the fact is that you can't get much more mainstream than Cambridge. They didn't invite her to speak just because she was a pornstar, but also because she had something to say about gender issues.

But all that is just by the way. The fact remains that 1) she is an alumna of RGS and 2) she is famous. (and yes, Vsion, like it or not, even famous outside the porn industry!) Therefore, I am going to return her name to the list. An edit war is not a good solution, but I feel that a bowdlerised page is not good either. --Slashme 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now returned her to the list, and flagged the section as {{POV-section}} again. I feel that this is a reasonable compromise. I would also suggest keeping that tag in there even if you feel strongly enough to remove her name from the list. Everyone can now be aware of the existence of A.C., and also that her notability is questioned by the school's advocates. Is this fair, Vsion? --Slashme 08:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be more fair, if you guys could be more accurate in your arguments, as there were several instances already that you guys are stretching the facts (or "exaggerating") a bit. There are many mentions of her influence in mainstream, or her talking about gender issues, but so far there is no concrete suggestion of what are her agenda. (Response to ryan) Regarding the statement "Quek says she wants "to shake people up from all these stereotypes of women as sex objects", com' on guys... don't be naive, this is just promotional or a joke. I believed you guys have been misled about her influence on gender issues, and the industry trying to "intellectualize" porn in the mainstream. And if you take those illusions out, it is basically porn-craft. (Response to Slashme) Did you watch the documentary? if so, could you tell us more about the "presidential debate at the Cambridge Union"? --Vsion 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not Annabel Chong's stated reasons for producing porn are true and whether or not you think she's a sham has no bearing on whether or not she's notable in the mainstream. -ryan-d 16:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
If it has no bearing, why did you bother to bring it up as part of your argument for her notability [1]? Please make up your mind. --Vsion 06:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Because I felt that it provided evidence as to her notability in the mainstream. If you refuse to accept it and instead consider it to be a promotional or a joke, and us to be all misled pawns of the porn industry, you're entitled to your own opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence is there. I think I've said all I have to say for now. Further argument is pointless and will do nothing to help resolve this dispute, especially since you've been ignoring all requests do so via WP:DR. Please continue your discussion with Slashme. -ryan-d 07:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Vsion: Yes, I saw the documentary (once, a year or two ago). As I recall, she seemed nervous at the debate, but made sensible comments. They didn't show the whole debate, of course, just a short section. If I remember correctly, the point that she was making at the time was about the way society accepts some forms of expression as valid in men, but not in women. --Slashme 05:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the infor. The word "debate" is very vague. Was it an official discussion panel event, or just a group of students chatting among themselves? In other words, was it an official public event attended by university officials and faculty and had a sizable audience? And if you consider her a serious feminist activist (or at least a commentator), then we really should reword the entry, because that was a public role she played, hence more notable than being a web designer. --Vsion 06:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a formal debate, but I can't remember whether it was attended by university officials and faculty. There was definitely a seated audience. Check out Cambridge Union Society for more information about the society that hosted it. It seems they have had some rather famous guests. Maybe someone reading this has seen the film more recently and can give a more informed comment on the debate scene? --Slashme 07:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm ... a formal debate? The editing must be good, because according to Quek, what she remembered was a bunch of very drunk students that day. --Vsion 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Stories

I have added a part under history pertaining to ghost stories. Please feel free to add to the two there. Thank you. Amurila 07:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather unencyclopedic, move to "folktales" section for the time being. At the very least, it should not contain name of real person, because it might hurt some people. --Vsion 04:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annabel Chong (not again!)

Never thought I'd have to come back to this dispute again. But in any case, "please be more consistent in your editing" is not a valid reason for removing Annabel Chong from the article. Let's try to be more civilized this time. Comments? -ryand 10:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Never really wanted to get involve in this Annabel Chong issue, but as I mentioned in the RJC page, the word "notable", according to the definition in Longman dictionary of comtemporary English, it mean "deserving to be noticed or given attention; important or excellent; outstanding: notable event/a notable improvement/Most of the directors are men, but Ms Parker is a notable exception." Thus it can be seen here that the word notable is used in a positive manner. I am not sure how a porn star, however famous, can be notable. Have anyone heard of phrases like "a notable pornstar", "a notable liar", or "a notable murderer"?

So ryand, make up your mind, if you want to insert AC in RGS page, others should be able to insert WSM name into RJC page. icecold1 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "notable" can in fact be used in a negative manner. All of the examples you gave are, if you ask any English linguist, valid. Also, I have already mentioned on the RJC talk page why the two issues are different, and I won't repeat it here. As Vsion has agreed (on our personal talk pages) to set aside the Annabel Chong issue for the time being, that's what we will do for now. -ryand 15:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't see why the 2 issues are different. If both are the students of the repective school, and both did something that are notable, then just put their name in. As simple as that.

By the way, thanks for pointing out the usage of notable. Learned something new here, although I still feel that using phares like "notable pornstar" is a little funny, but since it is vaild according to an English linguist, then just have to accept it. icecold1 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited the AC description to be in line with the presentation of WSM in RJC page. Ryand has still not revert why it shuld be his version that should stand until a consensus is attained. therefore, if there is no consensus, I presume other people's version should stand as well. icecold1 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are essentially making no argument. If no consensus is attained, neither version can fully claim to be the "correct" one. At any rate, now that there is precedent (in the form of the Wee Shu Min incident on the RJC article), the current revision of the article (that includes Annabel Chong) is the preferred one. Please refrain from arguing for the sake of arguing, per WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. -ryand 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You are essentially making no reply. You have still yet to answer my question on why it should be your version to stay if there is no consensus. I did not argue for the sake of arguing. It is because you keep on evading the question.icecold1 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Does ryand want me to edit what WSM is notable for in the RJC website? As I mentioned above, I edited it in line with WSM in RJC. ryand has also deleted the word "infamous" from WSM. WSM is indeed "infamous" for what she did, so what's the problem? You have still not reply to my question above on why it should always be your version to stay if there is no consensus. icecold1 06:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's separate the issues here:
  • Is she an alumna of RGS? - Yes. No debate here.
  • Is she famous? - Yes. This has been settled: She appeared in a documentary that was shown worldwide, and has been discussed in the New York Times. She even has her own WP page.
  • Is she notable? - That is a question of semantics. In the OED, the quotes seem divided on the issue. There is a reference to "notable wounds of the head", and there is a quote that reads "They have also a cunning of ascribing effects to wrong causes... Austin tells us the Heathens were notable at this", but in another quote, Fuller (1662) says "You have mingled many Unworthies among them, rather Notorious than Notable" (rather appropriate!)
  • What is she to be listed for? - She is neither a notable web designer or artist, so if she must be in the list, she should be listed as a pornographic actress.
I know the school would rather forget about her existence, but the fact remains that many more people outside Singapore have heard about Annabel Chong than have heard about RGS, simply due to the media attention that she got. I am interested in this case, because it seems as if the other alumnae are trying to censor the article.
I see many references here to "WSM" and "RJC". Could someone please link to the relevant articles? --Slashme 08:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What you had pointed out is very relevant, and I agree most of what you have written. However, the point is that ryand is not consistent in his edit. Why? because while he (I presume is a he as he said that he was from RI) wanted to list AC as pornograhic actress to attack RGS, but he do not want others to list WSM for what she had done. WSM is not famous because she is a blogger, she is famous because of her elitist remark. So, do you list her as something like "Wee Shu Min - ex-blogger famous for passing elitist remark" or something like that? Or for that matter, do you list our former President Devan Nair notable for being pressured to resign due to treatment for alcoholism (the joke that went round is that Nair is the short form for No Alcohol I Resign) ?By the way, I am not from RGS. icecold1 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Slashme: The articles in question are Wee Shu Min elitism scandal and Raffles Junior College.
Icecold1: First of all, you presume that I list Annabel Chong as a pornographic actress to attack RGS. Please assume good faith - I think most people would agree that the reason for Chong's notability is her stint as a pornographic actress. You have a valid point about Shu Min's notability - she is notable for the elitism scandal, and I will change the RJC article to reflect that (Devan Nair, on the other hand, was far more notable for being President of Singapore than he was for his alleged alcoholism). What I don't understand is why, instead of bringing up this issue on the RJC talk page, you choose instead to make a retaliatory edit on the RGS article. Nonetheless, I hope my edit on the RJC article resolves the issue. -ryand 11:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree on the revision on RJC. As for Devan Nair, I am not very sure as I cannot really recall his contribution as the President of Singapore that make him that notable. As far as my memory goes, he is more notable for the alleged alcoholism problem more than any other things. But who am I (we) to judge? Let the historian make the judgement. icecold1 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (lots of)vandalism

to be frank. what happened? this page nearly belongs on uncyclopedia. there's a lot of vandalism, on the lower end of the page (see the 5Cs to name one) im not too sure about the motto (daughters of a vanished moon) because im entertaining the slight possibility of it being true. ill try and clean it up in a few days if no one beats me to it. Twinscimitars (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

read the page again. there seems to be a few references to r.a. Salvatore's work in the anthem. so... the mottos not real. there isn't really that much vandalism so this should be cleaned up in a bit. oh, and i think there are some POV issues here and there. to point one (fairly glaring one) out, the remark about the 'pagan' undertones. as i said, ill clean this up in a few days.Twinscimitars (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

yup it was vandalism and obviously nonsense. reverted. checked each revision for constructive edits -- there weren't any. Maeglin 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maeglin (talk • contribs)