Talk:Chief of Defence Force (Singapore)/Archive 1

Phrasing

Whhat do you mean "considered to be" the first CDF? Who considers it--is it a large sample enough for justification?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence to say that he's "referred to as" the first CDF, since the source does indeed do so. I agree that "considered to be" was a bit weasel-worded. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok but that is only one source. There's should be another or othersOther dictionaries are better (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Added another source, and noted for clarity that these are MINDEF publications. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Much better. In reference to BG Vij , I would say (asI believe I initially added) he came after BG Campbell.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding more sources about this role now, so I'm working them into the article. I really appreciate your help in informing me about this. And yes, it does appear that Mr Kirpa came after Brig. Campbell. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. These people are laregely forgotten in Singapore's history.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Duties

Are not actions taken my individual CDFs. No where in the SAF act or legal documents state that the CDFs had to transform the SAF to a new generation of forces. Those were individual actions. Asuch i am removing that sectionOther dictionaries are better (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're removing information that is pertinent to the duties CDFs have undertaken in the role as CDFs from an article on the office? Why not move it to its own section instead? We're here to build the damn encyclopaedia, not hurt it by removing useful information! Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No where is in officially stated that a CDF must tranform the SAF. Those were individual actions taken. AND YOU DID NOt sign your name.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

People forget to sign sometimes. It's not against policy to do so. Fine, they were not "roles". But what exactly was wrong with including that information in its own section as "duties of recent CDFs"? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Plain simple English. They were actions taken by individuals. I get scolded by not signing my name so I an reminding you to do so.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Actions taken by individuals" in their capacity as CDF, which means it's relevant to this article. So why remove it? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have now requested specific input from the military history wikiproject regarding this content dispute. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

if you want to state it, you should break down the to a section called actions and achievements of every individual CDFs(from LG Choo onwards) to make it clear cut. Even so , that is NOT a role or prescribed duty. Most of their achievements and "recent duties" are anyway posted onthier individual pages (with no sources)Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just protected the article for three days to allow for dispute resolution. For what it's worth, my reading of those press releases is that they're referring to the highlights of individual CDFs' periods in office rather than generic duties that come with the role. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what is more pertinent to the discussion here is, should the information be included in the article, even if not under "Duties" or "Role"? My argument is that it should, and I really don't mind under what section it goes as long as it's in there. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check other military heads such as US Joint Chief of Staf Chairman, the UK Chief of the Defence Staff. There is no section indicating "recenrt roles". Again, I repeat, those are the actions of individuals (and the whole SAF/MINDEF). Not a role.A military leader is stated to be a leader not to specifically be involved in peacekeeping operations. That was a choice--not evne by just the CDF!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC (closed)

Should past chiefs' credits and accomplishments as published by the Singapore Ministry of Defence be added to or remain out of the article? Is such detail relevant in an article as it includes past officeholders? Or is it extra fluff? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since two-way discussion isn't forthcoming and we're not getting anywhere, time for an RFC. Obviously, as stated above, I'm for inclusion as per reasoning above. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Role: Is what you are tasked to do. Same as duties.

Credits, Achievements, actions: Individually taken--though inthe case of Singapore's CDF, it's very hard to say it was the individual's actions. MINDEF and Parliamentary heads also played a part. But the issue is personal/group actions should not be included under the article of CDF. I refer you to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom), Chief of the General Staff (Russia) articles. NONE of them say aanything about the recent achievements of the heads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound66 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a good reason for excluding this information here, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Go and get a dictionary and learn the difference between roles and actions and individual achievements. You want to mess this article up up to you. That is why Wiki sometimes sucks.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is policy; please don't talk down to me. I've taken time away from the article and hopefully that has cooled tensions. No one owns an article on Wikipedia, that is why discussion is necessary. I'm not here to "mess" any article up and you should assume good faith on my part. I will defer to you on this matter so as not to resurrect tensions but I ask that you please start editing more cohesively. Thanks and best wishes, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well up to now you haven't defined "role", "responsibility" and seen the difference at all between individuals and roles. Don't give me all the wikipedia rules when unless you know the differences in meaning.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

History before the term "CDF" came up

Is all accessible and read via the ST archives--http://newspapers.nl.sg/. Just serach for their names or manipulate search eg. BG Campbell B--it's all there so don't start reverting. Before this 90% of the sources were all from MINDEF publications and written in a Singaporean history book style. TheST archives describe the who's who before Choo. In fact, if you change your search terms well enough, you'll be able to find out the definition of CDF in Singapore history.All that needs tidying (and someone else can do this) is formatting referencesOther dictionaries are better (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Terribly written

Stilll needs lots of improvement. A larger proportion of the references come from Singaporean websites and it is written based on Singaporean history not a neutral bystanders view.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Incumbent upon you to find the sources that are not "based on Singaporean history" and from a "neutral bystanders view", then. The article as written passes WP:NPOV per se — it would have been mentioned otherwise in the MILHIST peer review. You're just making straw man arguments based on nationality now. Note that the Wikimedia Foundation "prohibits discrimination ... on the basis of ... national origin". Your continued suggestions, both on my talk page and here, that I've somehow "Singaporeanised" this article, are both in violation of that and are personal attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You started flooding the article with mostly MINDEF sources without looking afield.Whne i soruced for other content you removed most of it.You're not helping the article.And once again it is your POV that Goh was the de facto leader just based on ONE source. Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it my POV that Goh was de facto leader based on one source? The article states that Lee Kuan Yew called him the de-facto leader. It doesn't say User:Strange Passerby says GKS was de facto leader. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

One small source. Doesnt make it a fact.That would fail an exam.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This discussion is very strange. Whenever I see people adding comments like "still needs lots of improvement" I am left thinking that they are being WP:POINTy. Any article that's not yet Featured is in need of improvement, so what are you trying to say here? And the section heading just sounds deliberately inflammatory. Try something like "lack of diversity in references" instead, if that's really the issue you are aiming to raise.

I can't find any "Singaporean POV" in the article. And I don't see significant numbers of non-Singaporean sources added by Foxhound66 and then removed by Strange Passerby in the article history. As for diversity of references in the article in general, well, this article is about a position in the armed forces of a small country that does not make significant overseas military commitments. The coverage in secondary sources is naturally likely to be from sources located in that country. Whyever would it not be? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

90% of the sources were all from MINDEF publications and painting a wrong picture of what the CDF role was (see earlier) debate.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Since most of this article is edited by Strange Passerby despite my efforts to find better and wider sources, I'll let him/her take charge of it and edit it has he likes.But I reserves my arguments that it is horribly writtenOther dictionaries are better (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)