Talk:Han Hui Hui
Add topic| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Contested deletion
[edit]This page should not be speedily deleted because article can be improved. --S1mply.dogmom (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
'Perennial candidate'
[edit]Judging from the article, there are only two elections in which she has participated. She did lose in both of them, but just two elections are hardly enough to describe her as a 'perennial candidate', i.e. 'a political candidate who frequently runs for elected office and rarely, if ever, wins'. The implication seems to be that the normal thing would have been for her to quit immediately after her very first loss, but it is, to say the least, unclear why that should be the case - there is no such rule in politics. Specifically pointing out in the lede that she never secured more than 20% of the vote seems like a way to drive home the same message. This should only be included in the lede if reliable sources have noted this as a significant fact about her; otherwise, if someone has just compared the results of her two contests and made that generalisation, it would be OR. Anonymous44 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Info about mistreatment
[edit]She lists on her University of York page many ways in which she claims she has been mistreated by the Singaporean state. Even if she is considered a biased source, some of these claims should at least be reflected in the article, even if they are only attributed to her rather than stated as definitely true. Moreover, the fact that her fellowship at York is 'protective' implies that that institution does consider her claims true. In general, I get the feeling that this article has been written or rewritten by an agent of the Singaporean state or by a supporter of Singapore's ruling party in order to discredit and denigrate the subject, albeit in a somewhat subtle way. Anonymous44 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)