Talk:Singapore Taekwondo Federation

Singapore Taekwondo Federation

Hi, I noted your interest in STF and that you have been adding undue weight on STF's incidents. From the way I see the article is developing, it is becoming an attack page on STF. I like to note that if you have any conflict of interest with STF, regardless of working with them or a TKD athlete under STF, please refrain from editing the article directly. If you are coming here to edit their page because you are unhappy with them for any reason, please stop. Thanks. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree with you.

That an article attracts negative factual observations does not in itself equate to undue weight. Consideration must be had of the subject itself. In this particular instance, the facts available on the subject are generally negative. That explains why the article as a whole reflects negative facts.

In short, it cannot be undue weight if most of the available information on the particular subject is negative. Hyhyhy217 (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I would add further that the facts listed are undisputed and properly cited, along with being obtainable from public sources of information including information directly sourced from the STF's online repository. Hyhyhy217 (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You may wish to conduct the relevant searches on the subject whilst considering if your view constitutes false balance. Hyhyhy217 (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

While the available materials are negative, in terms of the material added, it takes up more than 50% of the article, hence the undue weight given. It is better to summarise the incidents instead of drilling into details which Wikipedia is not for (the detailed information are in the references which reader are encouraged to read them). While facts are undisputed and properly cited, please take note that Wikipedia requires reliable sources and preferably secondary sources.

While this is a Wikipedia essay, please do read WP:CSECTION and notes why we avoid controversy sections as much as possible.

The management incidents are really part of the organisation's history and should just be noted in the history section.

Grouping both the athlete management incidents and PDPA/PDPC incident under a general section called Incidents is normal and as per what I written, they are simply incidents in the organisation history :

• With regards to PDPA/PDPC, unfortunately is not reported in the news (or at least I failed to find any reliable secondary sources for it) so while PDPC has articles on it, it is considered primary sources and should not be used.
• Athlete management - The issue surrounding Ng Ming Wei should really be in his article with a summary listed on STF article. It deserves a mention on STF article but not a blow by blow recount there. It should really be over on his article. I noted that you removed my sentence on other athletes complaining about STF's athlete management which fit into Athlete management section.

Again, I like to emphasize if you have any conflict of interest (inclusive of any relationship with athletes under STF) or you are unhappy with STF for any reason, please refrain from editing the article. Thanks. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

In response:

1. A mathematical accounting of negative facts versus positive facts is not the barometer for undue weight. As cited: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Undue weight therefore emerges when competing views are presented in a manner which is disproportionate to their representation in reliable sources. It does not emerge simply because there are more negative facts than positive facts in any one article. Relative proportionality is key.
2. Accordingly, as the available reliable sources generally indicate negative facts, it would instead be undue weight if the resulting article were otherwise weighted.
3. The incidents are already summarised. The text entered comprises only a representative fraction of the facts discussed in each article. You may wish to consider the articles again.
4. I would disagree with you on the history versus controversy section, but that is a stylistic opinion which you are entitled to have.
5. I disagree with listing items as incidents. The athlete management incident forms part of a larger series of controversies as regards a critical time period in the STF's existence. Listing them as I have done would afford them the proper credence in relation to their relative impact vis-a-vis the STF's operations.
6. That sources are primary sources does not detract from their validity. While secondary sources are to be preferred, there is no blanket ban on primary sources. Primary sources remain capable of being "both reliable and useful in certain situations". Further, primary sources which "have been reputably published can be used in Wikipedia": see "no original research". Given that the source in question is reputable, I would disagree with your objection.
7. I have cited the facts pertaining to Ng's issue as they have been presented and in the same proportion as the secondary sources cited. Again, you may wish to re-consider the sources as a whole.

Hyhyhy217 (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

In response

1. I did not make any mathematical accounting of negative vs positive facts. As I mentioned, the incident is becoming more than 50% of the article. Typically this is in WP:COATRACK territory. If the incident is notable enough, please feel free to split off into individual articles. What Wikipedia do here is to keep a summary on the main article and have the notable incident in their own article.
2. From the start till now, I did not present or ask for positive news to create a false balance. I am asking to have a summary of the incident.
3. The incidents are barely summarised here and in fact, becoming a blow-by-blow recounting of the incidents.
4. We can agree to disagree here.
5. From Wikiepdia's definition of a controversy, Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. With regard to Ng Wei Ming's incident, there is no prolonged public dispute or debate, or sustained impact. It is an incident in the almost 50 years of existence of STF. The management change of STF threatened to derail the whole organisation but has a weightage lesser than a mismanagement of an athlete. The real critical time period is the management crisis rather than Ng.
6. There is no blanket ban on primary sources, I agree. If you look at the link to reputably published which is lifted from the whole phrase Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them, it goes back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. One source for the incident is a court ruling which requires interpretation and not acceptable as a primary source. You will need a secondary party to interpret the ruling and then subsequently use the reported interpretation as a source. The other source from PDPC can be used to a certain extent. Again, a secondary source will be prefered here.
7. Again, as I have mentioned this is almost a blow-by-blow accounting of his incident.

Since we are talking about the article, I will copy this conversation over to STF's talkpage. Thanks. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

In response:

1. As stated, the available materials are negative. One cannot move beyond what is available.
2. I would opine that the incident has already been suitably summarised. A blow-by-blow recital would cover far more ground. Again, you may wish to consider the sources themselves and the length thereof versus what has been extracted.
3. The summary that I have extracted gives proper context to the emergence of the management crisis as regards the STF per se at the material time. Neither incident happened in a vacuum.
4. It is incorrect that a court ruling necessarily requires interpretation. Simple facts cited within do not require interpretation. That an organisation was fined $30,000.00 is not something which can be interpreted inasmuch as the imposition of a fine is a statement of fact.
5. Again, I would differ. Considering the sources as a whole would establish that the edits I have made serve to summarise rather than recite the incident. I have not included other points cited in the article(s) and/or source material so as to maintain brevity.

Hyhyhy217 (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)