User talk:Sgconlaw: Difference between revisions

When replying to other people's messages, please indent your message by adding one or more colons (":", "::", ":::", and so on) to the start of your message, unless there are already too many levels of indentation.

Archives

Articles 2009–2010 • 2010–2011 • 2011–2012 • 2012–2013 Talk page 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014

Dear professor, please deal with the issues (all about clarification of legal details) raised at this GA review. Once again, thank you for the excellent work that your students have produced. Kindly note that I will be without my computer for the next few days. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking into it. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the contents are written by your students while you move them to the article namespace? Have you ever written your own articles? And when did you get to know and familiarise with Wikipedia? HYH.124 (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also do inform your students to edit with an account because I am seeing IP addresses as creators and you can never be sure that those are your students. HYH.124 (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on Wikipedia since about 2010. My students work on articles as part of a school project (for which they are graded), and then I edit the articles before moving them to the article namespace. I don't think I've actually written many articles of my own before – the project articles keep me busy enough – but I do some minor editing here and there, work on templates sometimes, and also upload files to the Commons. Yes, I always remind students to register accounts and log in before editing, but sometimes they forget and there isn't much I can do. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could the assignments possibly be promoted to featured article status? HYH.124 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, the articles need to be promoted to "good article" status. Hildanknight has been working on this – see "Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board#Good Article drive".

Also, where is there are section with question mark, "A procedural or substantive concept?" in Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore? HYH.124 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "why is there a section with a question mark", why not? The heading indicates that there is some doubt over whether fundamental rules of natural justice are a procedural or substantive concept.

In the "Right to die" subsection of Application section, it says, "In Singapore, attempted suicide, and abetment of suicide and attempted suicide are criminal acts" Why is "attempted suicide" repeated? Sorry for bothering. HYH.124 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the word abetment applies to both suicide and attempted suicide. However, I agree that this is not very clear, so I've rephrased the text to "attempted suicide, abetment of suicide, and abetment of attempted suicide". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you replaced the brackets in Right to vote in Singapore law; I've no objection to leaving them there, but I thought I might explain the reason for my edit. The usual interpretation of WP:MOSQUOTE, in my experience at least, is that "formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment" would apply in this case -- there's no change in meaning, so the reader is not being misled by silently changing the lower case to upper case here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that that section of MOSQUOTE which you referred to states: "Changing capitalization so that sentences begin with capital letters and do not have unnecessary capitals in the middle (the oft-repeated maxim "a penny saved is a penny earned")", but to be honest I don't see how the example given ("a penny saved is a penny earned") illuminates the point because it's not clear that it is a quotation from a source rather than just a well-known proverb. If it is indeed true that publishers go around changing capitalization in quotations silently all the time, then I am very surprised by that. It is certainly not the practice in legal writing. In the quotation in question, I think indicating the change in capitalization is desirable, otherwise it gives the false impression that that was a complete sentence in the original. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with professional copyediting is fairly limited, but I believe it is indeed common for publishers to change capitalization in quotes where the meaning is unaffected. However, if this is typically not done in legal writing, then we shouldn't do it in this case, so I agree with your revert. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my ignorance. I have a few questions regarding law to ask you. What does "v." in cases, e.g. Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor mean? Full case name: Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v. Public Prosecutor? What does "and others" mean? Also, does Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act qualify for GA? HYH.124 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The v. stands for the Latin word versus, which means "against". It indicates that the legal action was brought by the first-named party (in the above example, Chan Hiang Leng Colin) against the second-named party (the Public Prosecutor). The phrase "and others" means that the legal action was brought not just by or against the named party but other persons as well. However, to keep case names short, the names of these other persons are usually not indicated in case names.

It's not really for me to say whether "Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act" qualifies for GA. The only way to know for sure is for it to be nominated for GA and to see if an independent reviewer thinks it is. Why don't you get in touch with Hildanknight and ask his opinion, since as I mentioned previously he is working on a project to get various Singapore-related articles (including some of those worked on by the SMU project) awarded GA status. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just tagged him, so I believe he had seen or will see this reply. HYH.124 (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act deserves a shot at GA status and it will probably be included in the next round of nominations (along with others that should be out of Smuconlaw's sandbox by then). --Hildanknight (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is listing your work in the Further reading and References section of Constitution of Singapore a conflict of interest? Also, your students referred to your work when writing the article ("Other works" of References section), so did they paraphrase your work? If not it would be copyright violation. HYH.124 (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe WP:SELFPROMOTION has been infringed. Feel free to seek a second opinion. As for your other question, paraphrasing per se is not a problem; close paraphrasing is. You are welcome to look up the source and check for yourself. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also is "Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs [1989] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 461, H.C. (Singapore) ("Teo Soh Lung (H.C.)")." a source? Self-referencing to Wikipedia is not allowed, and is referring to a case allowed? HYH.124 (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a reference to the case is a self-reference to Wikipedia. Cases are primary sources, and can be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All this needs from you is a clarification of the "notwithstanding clause" and the article can pass! Happy Vesak in advance (if you celebrate it)! --Hildanknight (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, am in the middle of marking. Will have a look at it in a couple of days. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]