Talk:Singapore/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Maps is unusable

Singapore is a green circle?

Demographics Clarification

"Approximately 42% of the population in Singapore are foreigners and foreigners make up 50% of the service sector" By "foreigners" do you mean someone who has immigrated to Singapore (foreign born, holds citizenship)-- a better word for this would be "immigrant" ; or do you mean someone from a foreign country who is a non-citizen temporary worker? Feldercarb (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is (as far as I can determine), a statement about the percentage of non-citizens in the total resident population. Maybe it should be amended for clarity? Brythain (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"It has a diverse population of close to 5 million people made up of Chinese, Malays, Indians, Asians of various descents, and Caucasians." Surely Chinese, Malays and Indians are Asians? Also, shouldn't the statement reflect the fact the vast majority of people in Singapore are Chinese, and the rest are minorities? And what about Eurasians - are they Asians of various descents, or are they Europeans of various descents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Languages

What the aussie gentlemen wrote was quite detached from factual reality and a a lot of his text don't match the sources quoted.

Bull. The information was in-line with the sources, to the full possible extent I could make it. Now the information has been replaced by sources such as http://comesingapore.com/travel-guide/article/105/national-languages, with information that is actually not in the sources presented. Eg. "English is the main language in Singapore" is referenced to this word doc, which does not have the phrase "main language" in it at any point whatsoever. Additionally, continued reference to perceived nationality is completely unwarranted and unrelated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Similar problem in education revert. Now the article says that "there are four major subjects" and the source in no way supports that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Chipmunk,

1. "http://www.leeds.ac.uk/english/staff/afg/pragp3.doc" does mention that English is the dominant language in Singapore. Besides does Eng is the main lang really requires a source?..

2. What is perceived nationality?

3. The exact words are "there are 4 standard subjects", not "major subjects" like what you wrote. And the source "http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/primary/curriculum/" does support it. Read the box in the bottom right of the chart.

The original Edu section was much clearer...now you have written it to sound like a brief promotional advertorial with no details whatsoever...

Sg is extremely confusing when it comes to languages with many sources saying different things, i dnt think a foreigner can easily understand these things unless u grow up + live here for a long period of time. You have taken a little bit from here and a little bit from there to present an inaccurate picture of things. It is easy to find sources stating that Chinese is lingua franca or English is lingua franca or malay is the national language and then choose the version you like and warp things totally out of reality. Your edits make Spore sound like Msia frankly...

Some of the issues with your edits are:

Languages section..

1. English is the lingua franca of Singapore, with the other languages all experiencing wide usage within their ethnic groups.

There is no source for this... And it is not true anyway...since Singapore Indians use English > Tamil. Many Chinese don't use Chinese at home. The Eurasians mostly use English as well.

2. Singaporean Mandarin is generally spoken as the lingua franca among the Chinese community in Singapore. *source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11468401

The source does not mention Mandarin as lingua franca amongst Chi community at all not sure where that came from.

And this is not true. There are many Eng speaking Chinese who spk Eng to each other how can their lingua franca be chinese? since sg's working lang and edu lang are eng, chinese students and workers mostly use eng at work and in sch as well... to say mandarin is lingua franca would veri wrong indeed

3. Bahasa Melayu Pasar, or Bazaar Malay (a pidginised variety of Malay) used to be the lingua france spoken by all races before Singapore's independence and the switch to English in 1965. *source: http://www.hawaii.edu/satocenter/langnet/definitions/singlish.html

The source does not mention any switch of language. In fact, the source says that "English became widely spoken, alongside Singapore's many other languages. Since Singapore became an independent Republic in 1965, the use of English has increased still further."

Both Eng and Malay were lingua francas before 1965 and the used of Eng increased afterwards...sg did not switch from malay to eng..like eng wasn't spoken at all prior to 1965..

4. About two-thirds of the of the Indian population in Singapore are Tamil speakers from the India's southeastern state of Tamil Nadu.

How can Singaporean Indians be from Tamil Nadu when most haven't been to India? They have ancestry from that area..they are not from that area..

5. Even though only Tamil has official status, there have been no attempts to discourage the use or spread of other Indian languages.

Look at the census...in reality, most indians speak eng or tamil or malay. very few speak other indian languages..

6. Other Chinese languages, officially known in Singapore as dialects, also have a presence in Singapore although they are usually spoken only at home. ***source: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/ghsr1/chap2.pdf

The source does not mention that at all...and it is not exactly true as well that these dialects are usually spoken at home..

ps:There is also no mention that Malay is national lang for historical reasons and basically is only symbolic..most sporeans dont even speak malay...this is impt to point out..

pps: the way you write make it sound overall that malay is sg's main language and every ethnic group speak their own languages, with no one speaking english except when communicating with another ethnic group.. since u are aussie living in msia, i can see where that came from...

I quote your source from Gupta (*source: http://www.hawaii.edu/satocenter/langnet/definitions/singlish.html): Since Singapore became an independent Republic in 1965, the use of English has increased still further. For many Singaporeans, English is the main language. Many families speak English at home and it is one of the the first languages learnt by about half of the current pre-school children. Well over half of the population born since 1965 are native speakers of English, and the proportion of native speakers of English is still rising.

ppps: there is also no mention of chinese being the main home language...and the various chinese dialects..which is impt as well as they are widely used...

Defence..

1. The armed forces train on offshore islands, typically restricted to civilian access. *source: http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11917.html

Even though u have a source, not all sources are accurate. Any sg male who has been through conscription knows that the army does a lot of training on mainland sg as well. More explosive ones are on the islands but probably 70% are on mainland sg...another one of the thing u write that is simply not quite true.....

Ending..

I thought the edited language section I did after yours had solid sources. Maybe one or two sources like that ones u pointed out for Eng being the main language could be replaced with better sources.. that's about it.

Maybe we need 2 edit a little on the edu and armed forces as well now u've changed it.

Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1. The way you wrote it sounded strange, and I think we'd have to define whatever main language meant. Dominant language would be clearer.

3. I took it from the circle, but I will change that now, that's fine. The original education section was too long, I cut it and sourced it. It's meant to be brief.

Language section:

1. The source was the one cited, the literacy and language paper. Page 2 covers the relevant information, English is lingua franca, and although Indians use English more than Tamil, Tamil is still 51%.

2. The BBC source implies it, discussing how mandarin went on the rise after the Speak Mandarin Campaign. Their are other sources that document the strong use of Mandarin, such as the NY Times "Since the late 1970s, Singaporean Chinese have been required to learn Mandarin and encouraged to use it at home in place of the dialects which used to divide them...the replacement of dialects with standard Mandarin".

3. That can be reworded, I'll alter it to a shift after independence.

4. Ancestry, will note.

5. Perhaps they don't, but it's an important note that only in Indian languages are dialects allowed to be used for tests and such.

6. The usually there doesn't mean that most people at home speak those languages, but that those languages are pretty much just spoken at home.

ps. Find a source that says it is only symbolic.

pps. I'm not an aussie living in malaysia. And I'm not sure how such perceived subtleties can be fixed. It says at the start of the section English is the lingua franca. Would the addition of home language statistics suffice?

ppps. I'm fine with statistics being added to the end of the Chinese paragraph.

Defence

Subtleties in writing. I'll fix it. Feel free to add sourced information from this section, I pretty much took it from scratch, as the previous writing had only one source.

I'll make the easy changes and fixes I can. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Main language simply means the most commonly used language in SG. The language of the schools, govt, businesses, addresses... everything basically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingfrog (talk • contribs) 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1 Uhh..that is for 2005. For 2010, if u see my updated version, it shows that 41.6% of Singaporean Indians speak English as their home language and 36.7% speak Tamil as their home language. Source: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2010sr1/findings.pdf For the Chi and Eurasian, many speak Eng at home as well...it is simply quite incorrect.

2 The BBC article was written in a different context...the article basically talks about more people learning Chinese in SG. How did it get written in the wiki as Chinese is the sole lingua franca amongst SG Chi.

5 Yeah maybe that should be written in the edu segment and not language? In reality most SG Indians study Tamil and speak Tamil. 2010 Census shows only 14% of Indians speak a lang other than Malay/Tamil/Eng. And this is why I thought we should add the chinese dialects and the fact that Chi is most common home language to Chi section, after all, that is even more impt?

6. The source "http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/ghsr1/chap2.pdf" does not state that Chi Dialects are usually just spoken at home...and it is not true at all because many - mostly older or less educated - do speak it outside their homes. Just ask any sporean that...

PS I did provide the "comesg" website as a source but u removed it. I will try to find better sources. There are actually quite a few but they are books and harder to referenced so I used the website haha. But yeah Malay is national lang due to symbolic and historical reasons and most ppl don't speak malay these days..any sporean shld know that..I think it is quite impt to make this distinction and inform the readers that eng is the main lang so the readers don't think that the main lang in sg is malay?

ppps yeah there are many of these phrases/subtleties u used that come across as quite weird. Just 2 for example as it is quite tedious to pt out each phrase. "Other Chinese languages, officially known in Singapore as dialects" I don't think the govt "officially" call them dialects....they are just dialects...and "Pre-university education takes place over two to three years at senior schools called Junior Colleges, and is the final course needed for a School Graduation certificate." It sounded as if the "School Graduation certificate" is the main cert received but in reality it is just a testimonial thingy. The main cert received at the end of JC is the A level certificate which strangely not mentioned at all. etc.

• • • I thought u are an Aussie in Msia? No offense but it is quite hard to understand the lang situation/edu system in sg just by surfing the net or visiting as a tourist. I don't mean any malice at all but the entire language thing just sounded very detached from reality to me and I thought it is possibly because u are non local. It sounded like Sg has become a Malay speaking country, very few people speak Eng and the Sg Chi speak only Chi to each other all the time.

Maybe I will give it a brushover and you tell me what you think? I am cool as long as it does not sound a little too weird and detached from reality like it is now.

Cheers Smilingfrog (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Strangely, that document gives a lower stat than 51% even in 2000. Perhaps it can be stated in the Tamil paragraph that Tamil usage has been decreasing in the home, as it is replaced by English? There's space, it's the shortest paragraph. Would that be correct?

2. We can replace with the NYtimes one. It's not exactly disputed that Mandarin has become the prevalent Chinese dialect is it?

5. There's a lot of Chinese dialects, it'd be bad prose to just list them. I think Hokkien could be mentioned, due to its historical status. I think whether or not the languages are prevalent, it's notable that other's are allowed. Just as in 1, the figures could be added.

6. By at home I meant in completely unofficial contexts and not much in business. There's plenty of sources saying that Mandarin is the language of the youth now, for example. The education thing is true, probably as schools only teach Mandarin now.

PS Books are easily referenced, check out WP:CT to see how. Saying that it is "symbolic" is good, but it's saying it is "only symbolic" that comes across strangely. I doubt people reading this would see Malay as the main language, as it starts the section by saying English is.

PPPS Whether they are languages or dialects is not solid in linguistics, and the distinction between the two is blurred. I assume the next paragraph covering the tests would suffice for that?

• Whatever my nationality is and my location is shouldn't affect this at all. I'll reword the lingua franca sentence to better make the distinction. I think we associate different tones and connotations to the writing. I highly doubt Singapore is a Malay speaking country. I'm fine with rewords and the like, just as long as it's not too detailed or unsourced. I'll give it a shot myself, then you can see how it looks. Please add in the percentage speakers I mentioned above if you feel that would be a good solution. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Gone through it and tried to fix the major issues you have raised. Any information that seems lacking? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think it is bad prose to add all the dialects, after all, there are only 3-4 main Chinese dialects spoken in SG. And Mandarin really isn't the language of the youths but the older generations, as the youths tend to use English as their first language more often these days. Mandarin is simply replacing other Chinese dialects as their second language.

Oh yes, not sure if you know this but Chinese dialects (Mandarin vs Cantonese) are very different from Eng dialects (Am vs Brit). It is impossible for one dialect speaker to understand another dialect speaker that is why I felt it is impt to point out all the different Chi dialects spoken in SG. As they have a very sizeable group.

As for whether Mandarin is a dialect or language, this article is probably not interested in it. We can write it as Chinese dialect or Chinese language, as long as it is uniformly used throughout, it should be ok. In SG's case, dialect would probably be more appropriate.

I think we should not write " About two-thirds of the of the Indian population in Singapore are Tamil speakers, with their families coming from India's southeastern state of Tamil Nadu" because SG Indians and their families are born and raised in SG, they and their families are definitely not from India but from SG. Maybe I will rephrase it as they have ancestry from the SEtern state of Tamil Nadu.

I also think we should not write "Chinese is the designated mother tongue of Chinese Singaporean" or "Malay is the mother tongue of Malay Singaporean" as the term Mother Tongue is really a misnomer in SG's case, just like the term "national language", and confuses people. MT is normally used to refer to the first language internationally but in SG's case, it refers to the 2nd language. MT is only used in the education system and even then it describes the second language in schools not the first. In reality, Chinese Singaporeans have different "MTs". Many have Chinese or Eng as their MT, others have Hokkien/Cantonese etc.

Maybe I will just write the percentage of language speakers like u suggest and take out the "MTs" as that would be more accurate.

And maybe we can do away with this sentence "Even though Tamil is the official language, the lesser-used Indian languages are still allowed to be used in situations such as school tests". The reality is other Indian languages are ONLY allowed to be officially used in school and ONLY in the MT language paper....it is quite pointless mentioning such a thing really. Might as well write other Indian dialects such as XXX and XXX are also taught in schools and spoken by a few SG Indians.

Plus maybe do away with "Baba Malay, a variety of Malay Creole influenced by Hokkien and Bazaar Malay, is still spoken today by around 10,000 Peranakans in Singapore"? I have read the source but the UK source does not state any date for this information. Frankly this is quite insignificant isn't it? 10K/5million? There are prolly more Korean and Jap speakers in SG than that. My family is Pernakan myself. I haven't seen any true traditional Peranakans (Chinese wearing Malay/Chinese traditional dresses at home, speaking Baba Malay all the time) in Singapore. FYI the term Perankan simply means local born Chinese and most SG Chinese today are Perankans. Traditional P is a very fringe group, very small in size in SG and probably not worth making a distinction.

And maybe we should just label Eng as the main language of the entire country as that is clearer. The lingua franca of the people within the country sometimes varies according to their own first languages as well. Malay as the national language should also be highlighted as symbolic and that most Sporeans are not educated in it and don't speak it. I will try to find the sources.

Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends how it is written I suppose. Main 3 or 4 sounds good. From everything I've read and people I've met the older generations still use traditional dialects. Either way, Mandarin is pushing out the others, which is the point. We'll try to stick with dialect then.

I'll just scrap the origins then, say they speak Tamil. Mother tongue has an official definition, which I fully understand. It sounds like it's important enough to be mentioned, perhaps saying "English is the primary language, with the other three officially designated as the "Mother Tongue" of their respective nationality."

I think some form of the sentence should stay, it's unique that other dialects are allowed at all. Chinese and Malay dialects have all been phased out in educational and official situations.

That sentence is meant to show that the historical lingua franca (Bazaar Malay) had now been reduced down to a mere 10,000 people. It's not about naming a language for the sake of it.

I don't see how the point English is the "main language" is not made already. The first paragraph contains "English is the lingua franca of Singapore, spoken by a majority of the population, with the other languages used less often and mostly within their ethnic groups. Members of each ethnic group generally speak either English or their native language at home, with usage of English on the rise." That says not only that English is the main/dominant/most used language, but that its usage is increasing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ummm ok. My point is to write Eng as the main language and not lingua franca because lingua franca is the language used to communicate when ppl have different first languages. But in SG's case, many ppl have Eng as their first lang.

Another clarification is that lingua franca of pre-independence SG, the "Bazaar Malay" you talk about is simply just simple broken Malay. Today, Malay is still the national language. The one with 10,000 speakers left, "Baba Malay" of the Peranakans, is a different language, it is a creole of Hokkien and Malay, it certainly wasn't a lingua franca back then as it was only spoken by the Peranakan Chinese. Actually "Baba Malay" is basically broken Malay as well with some Hokkien words thrown in here and there. I speak a little "Baba Malay" and fluent Malay myself. They are all basically the same language - Malay.

Hokkien (lesser extent) and English were also lingua francas pre-indepence, maybe they should be mentioned as well.

Another clarification is Mandarin is not pushing out English as English is gaining ground, it is only pushing out the other Chinese dialects. The informal sector in SG has a lot of first language Chinese speakers as there are many Msian Chinese and + Mainland Chinese + Chi speaking Sporeans working in it.

Yep we can keep that then.

And the Indians are not 2/3 Tamil speaking...I don't know what the percentages are but what the source says is that 2/3 of them have ancestry from the Tamil speaking part of SE India. That does not mean that 2/3 of Spore Indians today are literate in Tamil and Tamil speaking.

Ok cool then.

Regards, Smilingfrog (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Right then, I explicitly stated main language, and clarified that meant it was spoken by a majority of the population.

Peranakan deleted.

English's gaining of ground is noted.

Statement removed.

There is now one introductory paragraph, one dealing with English and Mandarin, and one covering Malay and Tamil. Any information that seems to be lacking? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to this change, Hokkien I'm fine with mentioning as a previous lingua franca, English is already mentioned. I'll try dig up a source later. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"English is the main language, spoken by a majority of the population" -> This is true for the 3 million citizens but the entire population of 5 million (2 million foreigners mostly with Chinese as their first language) I am not sure. Chinese could possibly have the most number of speakers (1st + 2nd language included). Maybe just Eng is the main language will do.

"Bahasa Melayu Pasar, or Bazaar Malay (a pidginised variety of Malay) was the lingua france spoken by all races before English began to eclipse it" -> Maybe there is no need to write Bazaar Malay but just Malay as Bazaar Malay is just simple Malay. Many Sporeans then also spoke fluent Malay. In fact, just to confuse you further, many Sporean Chinese/Indians took up Malay as their "Mother Tongue" language in sch back then till the 1980s. Yeah it is confusing..

"Members of each ethnic group generally speak either English or their native language at home, with usage of English on the rise." -> The use of native language is quite confusing as being Sporeans, Eng is a native lang for many. If talking about ancestral lang, even the Chinese have many "ancestral langs" depending on where their ancestors were from - Mandarin (beijing), Hokkien (Fujian), Cantonese(GZ), Hakka(GZ area), Hainan(Hainan Island) etc. Mandarin is not even the ancestral language for 99% of SG Chinese. An mentioned previously, many Sporean Chinese/Indians also took up Malay as their "Mother Tongue" language in sch back then till the 1980s.

Maybe I will just edit the lang and defence section slightly later.

Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per wrong number.

---

As per my research in Tamil sound origin, The word "Singa" in Singapore need not refer to the lion only. The word Singam in Tamil is Si+n+akam, meaning "Never leaves out what enters + its + inside" literally meaning something fixed firmly and cannot move or escape out. so it can refer the Lion or Some place which is so attractive, Some place from which one cant escape etc. This may be useful for some who wants more on the name of Singapore or Singam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Malarmisai: My suggestion for you is to go to the correct article page (→ Names of Singapore ←) to discuss it, where you will find more detailed explanations to you by learned scholars of this particular subject, which we have discussed here to no avail. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of International TLDs in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per no clear consensus & WP:FORUM.

---

A user reverted my re-addition of the International TLDs to this page. Here are some points for its retention:

1. While it may not be an English language TLD, it is still an official TLD of the respected nation
2. These TLDs are used on other pages and not contested there, for e.g. China and Russia. Therefore, whether these International TLDs are or not to be used has to be a Wiki-wide policy.

--RaviC (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• @RaviC: Not everything on Wikipedia is policy, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for instance, Singapore uses British English. Hence, when someone not familar with Singapore comes here to edit but uses American spelling instead, the likelihood of her/him being corrected by any of us here is higher than striking 4D. Again, I just want to state that my rationale for reverting your edit is in the relevancy of it. I mean, who would dwell into those details when we're using English primarily here, right? Moreover, both .新加坡 and .சிங்கப்பூர் are redirected to .sg, thus rendering the former two redundant and extraneous. May be one might ask "does it help improve the article?", or "does it add value to the article?"; if the answers are "no", let's leave it at that and move on. Thoughts, anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree, as, these two TLDs will eventually have their own respective articles. I'm not sure if you are aware, but International TLDs are a new issuing, and therefore not all International TLDs will (yet) have articles. --RaviC (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• BTW, thanks for the welcome, but I've been here since 2006! --RaviC (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, I hate to burst your bubble but what I'm about to tell you is nothing further from the truth, those two TLDs will never get their own article pages on English Wikipedia so long as the primary English version (→ .sg ←) is up and running. One thing though, you may have registered since 2006, correct me if I got this wrong but I find your idea and perception of how Wikipedia works is definitely lacking. Hence, I would invite you to click on the Welcome section I've provided on your talk page to familarise yourself or you might find yourself continually banging against the walls around here. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• BTW, let me put forward this notion since you've skirted my questions to you... your input here really does not help to improve the article page nor does it add any more values than it already has. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You may have made some fair points, but attempting to insult my intellect was uncalled for. You personally asked me to provide my input on my talk page, and now are saying that I have no right to give it? I present to you a selection of articles which you can promptly nominate for deletion: .рф, مصر., السعودية., .срб, .укр. Cheers. --RaviC (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not when about half of your input examples are redirects, I rest my case. Adieu~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the Saudi one, which are redirects? --RaviC (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Masr (domain name) (for "مصر.") and .新加坡 plus .சிங்கப்பூர் for .sg. BTW, I've always been referring to your inputs (not referring to your discussion) so don't misconstrue my meaning by thinking that I'm directing it personally towards you, which I'm not. Please read carefully before you assume things. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm postponing my input in this article until other editors also contribute - this argument is leading nowhere. --RaviC (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Another thing, those extraneous article pages (per your input examples to me), with majority or part of the contents duplicating those from the country's main TLD page, will sooner or later be nominated for merging into the main article page by either an experienced editor (I would have done it but that would become a little bit sticky since COI comes to mind) or by a patrolling Administrator. My experience in dealing with such duplicate article is suffice to let you know that this is the usual process, something which you can't stop. And if you doubt me, go approach an Administrator and ask her/him to give you a frank assessment of what I just told you. That much I can say and tell. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Although International TLDs are implemented and are official, just how commonly are they used? How many sites are out there that specifically are linked to via a URL that has an international TLD in it, in comparison to a URL that ends in say .sg? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since they're officially recognized, they should be included in the infobox and what have you, as on other articles. Whether they should be linked or their articles should be merged/redirected is a separate issue entirely. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed, image removed from article page then deleted from commons.

---

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Human rights

Quigley, [1] According to the neutrality Wiki will refer to …all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Views were verifiable.

I addressed the consern: Difficult to find this info in Talk:Human rights in Singapore. Every article should have all information fairly including the human rights. I recommend human rights under “Government and politics” in subtitle. It will be easier to find, as requested, and will not take much more place. Watti Renew (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is already a link to that Human rights article at the top of the "Government and politics" section, with human rights discussed in that section briefly in summary style. Political activism within Singapore, such as that for human rights, environmentalism, or labor organization are found by navigating the Index of Singapore-related articles and the Outline of Singapore; both linked to at the bottom of the Singapore article. This article is an overview, so it does not have to address all verifiable related subjects. Quigley (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

New Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus reached and new version was implemented.

---

Singapore (/ˈsɪŋəpɔːr/ ), officially the Republic of Singapore, is a city-state island country off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, 137 kilometres (85 mi) north of the equator, in Southeast Asia. Consisting of 63 islands, it is separated from Malaysia by the Straits of Johor to its north and from Indonesia's Riau Islands by the Singapore Strait to its south. Located slightly north of the equator, the country is highly urbanised with very little primary rainforest remaining.

Part of various local empires since being inhabited in the 2nd century AD, Singapore was obtained as a trading post of the East India Company in 1819 from the Sultanate of Johor. It became part of the Straits Settlements in 1826, part of the British Empire. Occupied by the Japanese in World War II, Singapore declared independence, uniting with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963, although it was separated from Malaysia two years later. Before independence Singapore had a GDP per capita of $511, then the third highest in East Asia. After independence, foreign direct investment and a state-led drive for industrialisation created a modern economy.

Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government. The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959, although the democratic nature of the government has been called into question by organisations such as Freedom House. Since then it has had a massive increase in wealth, one of the Four Asian Tigers. Singapore is the world's fourth leading financial centre, with its port being one of the five busiest ports in the world. The economy depends heavily on exports and refining imported goods, especially in manufacturing, which constituted 26% of Singapore's GDP in 2005.

There are slightly over 5 million people in Singapore, of which 2.91 million were born locally. The population is highly diverse; the majority are Chinese, and Malays and Indians form significant minorities. Reflecting this diversity, the country has four official languages: English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. One of the five founding members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, the country is also the host of the APEC Secretariat, and a member of the East Asia Summit, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the Commonwealth.

The current lead I feel does not give an adequate overview of the article, instead being filled with factoids about quality and life and globalisation, with a lot of information about economy. I've drafted a new lead, very roughly, partially based off the old lead but hopefully including a greater variety of information. Is there any content that should be included but currently isn't? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think your text is an improvement. To give an even more rounded picture, I should be inclined to add a neutrally-worded sentence about the widely perceived authoritarian nature of the PAP regime (low international ratings on freedom of speech, etc.). -- Alarics (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want the lead to have lists in them, but also don't want to introduce weasel words, so I've mentioned that "the democratic nature of the government has been called into question by organisations such as Freedom House." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that the elections themselves are other than free and fair. How about:

"The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959, and governs on the basis of a strong state, meritocracy, and prioritising collective welfare over individual rights such as freedom of speech, an approach that has attracted criticism from organisations such as Freedom House.

[new para] Since independence, Singapore has had a massive increase in wealth....." -- Alarics (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds useful, but as there shouldn't be more than four paragraphs, perhaps combining the "Since independence etc." with the paragraph above? The line about historical GDP can go I think, not useful for an overview of current Singapore. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The government likes to claim that Singapore is a meritocracy; this doesn't mean it is one. Jpatokal (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was the ideological basis of SG's split with Malaysia (i.e. no special treatment for particular racial groups). Have serious independent observers said that it isn't a meritocracy? If so, leave that bit out. -- Alarics (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Singapore is indeed a meritocracy. The reason independent observers do not contest this claim is that 'meritocracy' was coined by LSE sociologist Michael Dunlop Young (later Lord Dartington) in his 1958 satire 'The Rise of the Meritocracy' to connote a purely negative phenomenon. This satire was based on his 1955 doctoral research on social conditions in Bethnal Green, in East London. You may realise that Goh Keng Swee was one of his contemporaries at LSE, receiving a PhD in economics in 1956 and playing a key role in formulating a meritocratic approach to government in 1959. The dates certainly imply an obvious relationship. Brythain (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So are we saying that Goh Kweng Swee didn't realise that Michael Young was being satirical? -- Alarics (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Independent observers do contest the claim, see Meritocracy#Singapore and the refs therein. Jpatokal (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Meritocracy#Singapore doesn't say that independent observers contest the claim that Singapore is a meritocracy, it only says that some Singaporeans think the principle is not applied uniformly. -- Alarics (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Then try these: [2], [3], [4] ...

Again, nobody contests that the Singapore government claims that Singapore is a meritocracy. What is contested is whether Singapore is actually a meritocracy, that is, whether the system in place actually promotes people based on merit alone. Jpatokal (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I brought up Young is that he pointed out in his research that the definition of merit itself tends to be self-serving. So yes, Singapore is indeed a meritocracy, but one needs to decide whether the local definition of merit is meritorious enough. I've looked at those links; I must apologise: I thought that by 'independent' you meant 'neutral'. :) I have read a lot of Barr, (and Trocki and Skrbis), and his (and their) point is that judging from the outcomes, there is disproportionate bias towards males and Chinese. What needs to be examined then is how merit is determined, and as long as the Armed Forces (with compulsory national service for men) is considered a legitimate recruitment sector for the elite, those structural tendencies will remain. Brythain (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alarics, I didn't quite say that. :) I will note that there is the circumstantial basis for thinking such a relationship might exist, but I have not found a smoking gun.Brythain (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

To take the appointment of secondary school principals as a practical example,if you look at all their names, quite a lot are women, and the Malay and Indian minorities appear to be quite well represented. Still, if people aren't happy, let's just omit the word "meritocracy". I didn't realise the claim was that controversial. -- Alarics (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So are we good with these new second and third paragraphs? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of various local empires since being inhabited in the 2nd century AD, Singapore was obtained as a trading post of the East India Company in 1819 from the Sultanate of Johor. It became part of the Straits Settlements in 1826, part of the British Empire. Occupied by the Japanese in World War II, Singapore declared independence, uniting with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963, although it was separated from Malaysia two years later. Since then it has had a massive increase in wealth, and is one of the Four Asian Tigers. Singapore is the world's fourth leading financial centre, and its port is one of the five busiest ports in the world. The economy depends heavily on exports and refining imported goods, especially in manufacturing, which constituted 26% of Singapore's GDP in 2005.

Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government. The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959, and governs on the basis of a strong state and prioritising collective welfare over individual rights such as freedom of speech, an approach that has attracted criticism from organisations such as Freedom House.

I don't think "Singapore was obtained as a trading post of the East India Company in 1819 from the Sultanate of Johor" is accurate. In 1819, Raffles obtained permission to set up a trading post ON the island. This trading post was administered by Sir William Farquhar. Sovereignty over the island was obtained in 1824 by the treaty that Dr John Crawfurd made with the Malay rajas. I would reword the first two sentences to something like the following.Brythain (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of various local empires since being inhabited in the 2nd century AD, Singapore hosted a trading post of the East India Company in 1819 with permission from the Sultanate of Johor. The British obtained sovereignty over the island in 1824 and Singapore became one of the British Straits Settlements in 1826.

So is this lead suitable? I included suggestions above, copyedited slightly, adding a note of land reclamation. Feel free to simply edit this if the only problem is grammar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Singapore (/ˈsɪŋəpɔːr/ ), officially the Republic of Singapore, is a southeast asian city-state off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, 137 kilometres (85 mi) north of the equator. An island country made up of 63 islands, it is separated from Malaysia by the Straits of Johor to its north and from Indonesia's Riau Islands by the Singapore Strait to its south. The country is highly urbanised with very little primary rainforest remaining, although more land is being created for development through land reclamation.

Part of various local empires since being inhabited in the 2nd century AD, Singapore hosted a trading post of the East India Company in 1819 with permission from the Sultanate of Johor. The British obtained sovereignty over the island in 1824 and Singapore became one of the British Straits Settlements in 1826. Occupied by the Japanese in World War II, Singapore declared independence, uniting with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963, although it was separated from Malaysia two years later. Since then it has had a massive increase in wealth, and is one of the Four Asian Tigers. Singapore is the world's fourth leading financial centre, and its port is one of the five busiest ports in the world. The economy depends heavily on exports and refining imported goods, especially in manufacturing, which constituted 26% of Singapore's GDP in 2005.

Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government. The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959, and governs on the basis of a strong state and prioritising collective welfare over individual rights such as freedom of speech, an approach that has attracted criticism from organisations such as Freedom House.

There are slightly over 5 million people in Singapore, of which 2.91 million were born locally. The population is highly diverse; the majority are Chinese, with Malays and Indians forming significant minorities. Reflecting this diversity, the country has four official languages: English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. One of the five founding members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, the country is also the host of the APEC Secretariat, and a member of the East Asia Summit, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the Commonwealth.

Looks fine to me. -- Alarics (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• A bit belated but... the new lead looks good to me too. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

flawless neutral point of view

So far the article is a hodge podge of different views. The article must be written that has a voice that recognises all significant viewpoints. Often key international organisations are used because they have reliable sources that can speak up for the others. Of critical need are well-researched scholarly articles, and articles that reference the alternative media. Often a few key reliable sources speak up for a variety of viewpoints that do not make it into the mainstream press because of censorship. At the same time, historical awareness should be promoted -- and international sources that seem ignorant of the subtleties of Singaporean history should be less accommodated. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some specific examples in mind... Chensiyuan (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The article should discuss rankings only in passing and should not use them to make a point, only support a point. We prefer scholarly analysis a la The Economist. There are some good texts out there (Lee's Lieutenants, etc.) that are truly the work of historical analysts and are sufficiently critical of any viewpoint that fit NPOV perfectly. Amnesty International et. al, do not really make scholarly statements, only advocacy-based ones. We should also avoid copping out to labels since they are pretty uninformative. Cardinal economic statistics can only tell so much, but not the key essence of the type of Singapore's unique economic and political system which starts all the way with Goh Keng Swee and Toh Chin Chye (of course we should not focus on them but we should mention succinctly key institutions -- what exactly in Singapore's free market and what makes it different from America's free market? certainly it is not lack of regulation). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Economist provides scholarly analysis? Chensiyuan (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite as heavy as an academic paper, but its prosaic style and breadth of analysis is to be respected. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"nominally"

This is just to hint that a situation is more complex than it first appears, i.e. Singapore is kinda like a parliamentary republic, and at the same time there are factors which make it not so much like a parliamentary republic (which is not the same as "republic with a parliament"); note that Parliament is not frequently talked in day to day affairs -- it is the ministers and so forth. Parliament is at this moment, a formality to a style of governance that is not really parliamentary. Parliamentary committees don't hold that much real political power.

Most fifth graders, tourists, and the like won't really know what "Singapore is a parliamentary republic" really means anyway. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, have you got a WP:RS for those statements? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummm yes? There's like a plethora of them (LKY's own statement for example), in turn corroborated by a large amount of citizen media. The challenge is to summarise them succinctly. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are. Can you provide some so we have something to work from? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, internet is really slow for me, give me some time. I trust that google will give you some clues. See some sources below. See especially post-election analysis articles. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

candidate sources to be incorporated

Perhaps one way of improving this article is to list sources first and then look for statements that we can source from them. All sources -- books and the like -- are to be appreciated. (I compiled a pretty extensive list for Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports -- which is in need of a major re-write; right now it has a pretty bad band-aid to fight promotional material, but if I flesh out all the sources on the talk page, it will be awesome). In general, I believe this approach is promising.

• Go East, young bureaucrat: Emerging Asia can teach the West a lot about government (The Economist -- the source mentions many of the unique institutions in Singapore with a critical eye and analyses the reasons for the government's success. Why is Singapore's bureaucracy so much more efficient than the West's? Why is it perceived as actually doing shit? etc.)
• "The Singapore Model" which I plan to introduce into the article in so far as the term discusses why Singapore's system can't be simply stereotyped
• PAP MPs told to follow rules of prudence (useful because it discusses that MPs need to behave spotlessly in order to preserve the reputation and political advantage of Singapore's government; note that SingaporeScene is heavily affiliated with Yahoo News! Singapore and run by professional editorial staff, and they corroborate the PAP message itself)
• Political life without LKY (the title concerns LKY, but it really focuses on the citizenry's common complaints against the government)

Some of this will overlap with other articles of course. Ideally by the time this reaches FAC, we will nominate and incorporate dozens of sources with large depth and breadth -- I will start with 4 new ones "to do", but I think we can nominate 300 and incorporate 100. Cheers. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a few statements that could be taken from the first one. The second seems to apply mostly to government services, rather than how the government works. The third I think we have to be careful with, as it is a statement by a PAP member about a code of conduct. The fourth is a good one, can be used for info on political change. I like this find sources plan. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the third source is from Yahoo News! Singapore (staffed by a professional editorial team that is not linked to the government, unlike the Straits Times); the code of conduct says a lot about how the government perceives itself, and can be corroborated with borderline reliable sources (domestically reputable pro-opposition alternative media). Thus we can use well-written political analysis articles by key writers (yawningbread, etc.) or Temasek Review in conjunction with pro-government media that reference the same facts or facts of perception; this will avoid many of the problems of self-published sources, since they enjoy a) a national reputation and thus face national scrutiny b) their individual biases cancel each other, if we cite them in conjunction. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but there's a question of WP:DUE with that sort of information. I'm thinking this information belongs within the first paragraph of the government section, which can be divided into two paragraphs, the functions of the system and the control and style of the PAP. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a partial list of book sources I've been using in my research. I've excluded archival, research papers and online sources.

• Ang, S. L. & Samad, N. A. (Eds.) (2007). A Baba Bibliography: A select annotated listing of sources on the Peranakan Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia. Compiled by B. Tan. Singapore: National Library Board.
• Austin, I. P. (2004). Goh Keng Swee and Southeast Asian Governance. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
• Baker, J. (2005). The Eagle in the Lion City: America, Americans and Singapore. Singapore: Landmark Books.
• Barr, M. D. & Skrbis, Z. (2008). Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project. Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS Press.
• Barr, M. D. & Trocki, C. A. (2008). Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore. Singapore: NUS Press.
• Chew, E. C. T. & Lee, E. (1991). A History of Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
• Chong, T. (2010). Management of Success: Singapore Revisited. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
• Chua, B. H. (1995). Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.
• Frost, M. R. & Balasingam-Chow, Y. M. (2009). Singapore: A Biography. Singapore: Editions Didier-Millet.
• George, C. (2000). Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation – Essays on the Politics of Comfort and Control 1990-2000. Singapore: Landmark Books.
• Goh, K. S. (1972, republished 1995). The Economics of Modernization. Singapore: Federal Books.
• Goh, K. S. (1977, republished 1995). The Practice of Economic Growth. Singapore: Federal Books.
• Goh, K. S. (1995). Wealth of East Asian Nations. Singapore: Federal Books.
• Heng, D. (Ed.) (2005). New Perspectives and Sources on the History of Singapore: A Multi-disciplinary Approach. Singapore: National Library Board.
• Hong, L. & Huang, J. (2008). The Scripting of a National History: Singapore and Its Pasts. Singapore: NUS Press.
• Huxley, T. (2000). Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore. St Leonard’s, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
• Koh, A. (2010). Tactical Globalisation: Learning From The Singapore Experiment. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG.
• Kwa, C. G., Heng, D. & Tan, T. Y. (2009). Singapore: A 700-Year History—From Early Emporium to World City. Singapore: National Archives.
• Lam, P. E. & Tan, K. Y. L. (Eds.) (1999). Lee’s Lieutenants: Singapore’s Old Guard. St Leonard’s, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
• Latif, A. I. (2009). Lim Kim San: A Builder of Singapore. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
• Lee, E. (2008). Singapore: The Unexpected Nation. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
• Lee, K. Y. (1998). The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore: Times Media.
• Lee, K. Y. (2000). From Third World to First — The Singapore Story: 1965-2000. Singapore: Times Media.
• Lee, S. A. (2007). Singapore: From Place to Nation. Singapore: Prentice-Hall.
• Leifer, M. (2000). Singapore’s Foreign Policy: Coping With Vulnerability. London: Routledge.
• Murray, G. & Perera, A. (1996). Singapore: The Global City-State. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ngiam, T. D. (2006). A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
• Ooi, K. B. (2010). In Lieu of Ideology: An intellectual biography of Goh Keng Swee. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
• Ooi, G. L. & Shaw, B. J. (2004). Beyond the Port City: Development and Identity in 21st Century Singapore. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
• Sim, W. H. and Yip, J. (1990). Evolution of Educational Excellence. Singapore: Longman.
• Song, O. S. (1923, reprinted 1967). One Hundred Years’ History of the Chinese in Singapore. Singapore: Malayan University Press.
• Tan, J. & Ng P. T. (2008). Thinking Schools, Learning Nation: Contemporary Issues and Challenges. Singapore: Prentice-Hall/Pearson.
• Trocki, C. A. (2006). Singapore: Wealth, power and the culture of control. Oxford: Routledge.
• Turnbull, C. M. (2009). A History of Modern Singapore 1819-2005. Singapore: NUS Press.
• Velayutham, S. (2007). Responding to Globalization: Nation, Culture and Identity in Singapore. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
• Yao, S. (2007). Singapore: The State and the culture of excess. New York: Routledge.

Cheers! Brythain (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! "From Third World to First" is written by LKY, which means it'll be very useful, but at the same time, things are from his POV. I really like Lee's Lieutenants -- it's a sharp insight, properly credits Goh Keng Swee and Toh Chin Chye for their achievements, and will be useful for Central Executive Committee (PAP) as well. We may not be able to use this source directly, but this expertly-written history article relies heavily on Lee's Lieutenants. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• @Elle, Pertaining to "From third world to first" and/or "The Singapore Story", I wouldn't say that it was entirely from his point of view, as LKY had mentioned that he had compared notes with his other colleagues (such as Dr Goh, Toh and Eddie) so as to get the facts right (fact check performed also by the late Mrs Lee, Kwa Geok Choo). I think you can find this reference in the preface section of both books. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:Drama & WP:Not a forum, previous discussion(s) was automatically archived after conclusion reached, please check archive before commenting again.

---

Is it just me, or is there an edit dispute going on recently between User:Smilingfrog and User:Chipmunkdavis? We should discuss this. — b3virq3b (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• @B3virq3b: For the last time, no more forumy statements here. That discussion was automatically archived within 30 days after conclusion was reached, so stop your drama already. You have been warned, again. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple section content disputes (was: What dispute??))

It appears that User:Smilingfrog and User:Chipmunkdavis have been reverting each other's edits over the last couple of days, see: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. While neither of them has violated WP:3RR yet, the disputed text involves a decent number of paragraphs. Both versions put forth by both users have their own merits, some mediation should be done to reach a consensus. — b3virq3b (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Offtopic

To Dave1185: I couldn't find any prior discussions about this issue in the archive. I reiterate, this is something new that happened in the last two days, any other disputes they might have had previously is not pertinent. Also, I don't think WP:FORUM applies here. I quote (emphasis mine): Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. I am only doing what the emphasised text mentions. @B3virq3b, You said this now but your statement above isn't anywhere near that just now; pretty useless to be beating around the bush, get straight to the point next time and all this wouldn't have happened to you in the very first place. Reason why FORUM applies to you is clearly stated therein, "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." Agreed? Lastly, as I've said earlier, no WP:Drama please, either you: help them to discuss it (provided they want to), OR stop fanning the fire. It is that simple. Should you carry on with such behaviour, rest assured that you will be reported on ANI for being POINTY as well. BTW, I've been wanting to ask you a question after going through some observations, are you related to RaviC in any way and is this your first account here? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC) To your last two questions: No. Yes. Please stop making a fuss over a rushed remark and move on. FWIW, I have put in an intervening edit last night so that they cannot simply revert each other due to merge conflicts. — b3virq3b (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC) If it is truly FWIW, you would have either: 1.) mind your own business; OR 2.) helped them out directly instead of asking a stupid question here, when you could have gotten straight to the point and waste nobodys' time. And that to me, was WP:Drama. FWIW, I'm closing this thread, you may start a new one that is actually going to help them (ask them to participate and you to stay out because I don't trust you after what you've said and done) instead of you beating again around the bush. Out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, let's stay on topic. So there is definitely an edit war going on and I would very much like to Smilingfrog and Chipmunkdavis explain themselves, because I don't really see why the IMF's GDP figures are obviously superior to the CIA's (or vica versa). Jpatokal (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is a slight misunderstanding here. If you check the sample edits I've linked to, the dispute I see aren't about GDP figures, but with regards to the content of multiple sections (mainly the lead, government and politics, economy, and cuisine). I mainly would like to know why Smilingfrog is blindly reverting the whole article instead of targeting the appropriate sections as there are some changes that are clearly uncontroversial (eg. formatting of dates). — b3virq3b (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I was looking at an edit that apparently wasn't a part of the edit war per se. Nevertheless, as you say, I would also like to understand the rationale behind the edits. Jpatokal (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been away for awhile, but if i'll explain myself off my last action on this page, here, which I gave the edit summary "Rv blind revert".

• In the lead, I think that mention of PAP, which has governed Singapore for its entire existence as a self-governing entity, deserves mention.
• the "from the United Kingdom" in the body was removed by someone else as being not the best prose, and I agree. As for the source change, I have more faith in the RS credentials of channelnewsasia than overseassingaporean, although I am open to being corrected on that.
• In the section of Laws, as British Indian legislation was basically British, I don't see why it should be mentioned, especially unsourced. Addtionally, the trial by jury and other mentions there are sourced.
• In the Economy section, having the information on Singapore being a financial centre would be bad prose, as it would result in two short choppy paragraphs.
• The sentence about households owning $1 million is more close to the source than assets under management, as far as I can tell.
• The tiny sentence on companies in WP:UNDUE as well as being unsourced.
• In the cuisine section, the sentence on defined foods is from the source and I think highly relevant to Singaporean cuisine.
• I see no reason to remove the sentence on restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly.
• Information about Mediacorp Asia is again UNDUE on this page.
• In regards to the information about censorship, the information I reverted too has sources and is I think clearer.

I think that's all the changes that aren't minor formatting/date changes or similar tiny things. If there's anything I haven't mentioned or you'd like a clarification on, or you think I'm wrong on, it would be good to hear it. I'll wait for input before changing the article again. Sorry for the delay in this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No objections? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Full page protection against persistent edit warring by Smilingfrog

Evidences

1. 06:29, 12 July 2011;
2. 06:25, 12 July 2011;
3. 22:22, 10 July 2011;
4. 18:06, 10 July 2011;
5. 18:05, 10 July 2011;
6. 17:59, 10 July 2011;
7. 17:16, 10 July 2011.

• Dear all, this is a public announcement notice in view of Smilingfrog (talk · contribs)'s persistent refusal to get the point and to discuss his disruptive and tendentious editing behaviours in reintroducing contents that are in clear and direct violations of WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NPOV, WP:OVERLINK and WP:UNDUE into the article page. As evident in his talk page history, we have tried to communicate with him but it seems to us that this is all a game to him. But in the spirit of WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Chipmunkdavis and I, we would urge him to discuss this with us right here in this section the reasons behind his controversial edits, without prejudice. In the event that Smilingfrog continue to ignore us and revert the contents again without even making any effort on his part to discuss with us, it will be deemed as a deliberate and wilful intent on his part to game the system (see → WP:Gaming the system). For which, the preventive sanctioning measure will be a BLOCK on him, however long or short it might be, to carry our message/point across. That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Eh, you need to chill out Dave. I only visit a few times a week, sometimes much less, so I am not as active as you are. Frankly, I have no idea what you are on about. The edits you listed are original uncontested edits to the economy section. I did not break the 3RR rule.

Anyways, here are the edits I THINK you are contesting:

1. [11];
2. [12].

Let me know which lines exactly are WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE exactly. Please list out the individual lines that you assert are undue or a biased opinion. Don't just write that you think that all the lines are undue and non-neutral, tell me which individual lines are such and prove it.

Because last time I checked, I had a very reputable source for each line and they are all actualities, not views.

I hadn't realised it before but I was lookin' at the history just now and I would like to invite Chipmunkies to explain why he keeps reverting my edits in cuisine and media, pointing out LINE BY LINE, what he has problems with.

And lastly, please be polite, assume good faith and build consensus, especially you Dave! I'm sure we can work this out.

Cheers,

Smilingfrog (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Smilingfrog, please note that it is imperative that you tone down your rheotric as well as your mindset of a victim mentality. FYI, we are not going all out to get you, and per the last sentence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Question is, have you reciprocated? Also, let me ask you if this is a freudian slip that you are addressing User:Chipmunkdavis as "Chipmunkies"? What about asking me to chill? That speaks a lot of your persistent victim mentality and under this kind of circumstances, you want us to assume good faith while you carry on blindly reverting our objection of your content additions. The onus is now on you to read through your own statement and reflect on it, not us doing you the favour by telling you what to do. Anyway, I'm done talking to you and I'm sure Chipmunkdavis has something else to add. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• When you are done with the irrational rude personal attacks, maybe you can find time out to resolve this dispute, which really was created by you anyway, by reaching consensus, and to do that, you first have to answer my original question: Let me know which lines exactly are WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE exactly. Please list out the individual lines that you assert are undue or a biased opinion. Don't just write that you think that all the lines are undue and non-neutral, tell me which individual lines are such and prove it. And I personally find it funny that you you think my addressing of 'Chipmunkdavis' as 'Chipmunkies' is an insult. Surely any user fluent in English would agree that it is a way of shortening his name and to show affection and friendship. Barbecue -> Barbie. Australians -> Aussies. But that is not the part I find funniest, the funniest part is, I am not sure why you have to point to my history when I have kept the same 'Chipmunkies' address in my reply anyway. I merely edited my reply to indent and bold it. LMAO. You need to cough some of that gunpowder in you out man, yep, give it a good cough lol. I am looking forward to good faith, polite, civilised, replies from you. I am lookin' forward to Chippy chipping in later. Now that rhymes dunnit? Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Smilingfrog on this one. Dave's the one being irrational. Oh, and I also agree that Chipmunkdavis > Chipmunkies is affectionate if anything - certainly not derogatory anyway. Jees! Qwerta369 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia pro, so I sometimes fail to understand the nuances of the various objections. That is why it's good for people to make more explicit statements if revert-reverts are going on. It makes it hard to do any consensual editing, and now that (see above) people are complaining about tangible instances of bad writing, I find myself unable to help out because the page is locked. So, Smilie and Chippie (if that is what you both prefer), could you please sort it out quick? And Dave, yes you're very experienced, but because of the many rounds of reverts, I've lost track of what the issues really are. Sorry. Brythain (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The main problem Smilingfrog is that you have continued to simply make complete blind reverts without discussing or giving an explanation on the talkpage. Furthermore, you continue to make a vast series of edits at the same time over multiple areas. This means we can not understand why you want to make a certain change and the reasonings behind it. Anyway, my list of issues is a couple of discussions up on this page, although I think the bits currently reverted may have altered that slightly. Anyway, I suggest we all stay away from the undo button after protection expires. I'm currently trying to touch up the bottom media paragraph, but am getting conflicting sources about the 100 limit etc., will see what happens. Also as an FYI, I have placed some of the information about oil rigs etc. which you placed on this page but Dave reverted in Economy of Singapore and expanded slightly.

So in summary, use the talkpage, my bullet points two conversations above. Thanks for indenting your conversation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment from the peanut gallery:

I echo that sentiment. Smilingfrog, the problems as I see it are not so much whether the content changes you are making violate any guidelines. The problems arise from your behavior, to wit:

• You are making contentious edits without bothering to explain them, either in your edit summaries or on the talk page
• You are engaging in wholesale blind reverts without explanation or justification

It's good that you're here on the talk page now (and your contribution history reveals that this is unusual for you). The burden is on you to justify each of your changes, line by line. You have not done so. The burden on others such as Dave to explain reverts of disruptive behavior has already been met, as far as I can tell.

I would also recommend to Dave: if you perceive any baiting or sarcasm from anyone, do your best to shrug it off and keep your eye on the goal of resolving rather than escalating a dispute. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note that I subscribed to WP:DGAF, nothing better to shrug off those baiting and sarcasm with. And thanks for lending an administrative viewpoint into the discussion, which I'm quite certain that Smilingfrog wasn't expecting. As I see it, it is best to let him run his course under your watch, and the sooner he satisfies the criterions for unlocking, the sooner we can return to active editing here. Otherwise, we can wait. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment. I don't think Smilingfrog's edits are necessarily all bad, but he has clearly been acting in too unilateral a manner which in the context of this article has at times arguably verged on the needlessly provocative. With a major article like this which is clearly of concern to many editors, any change other than minor edits needs to be discussed on the talk page in order to reach a consensus, and all edits ought to be properly explained in the edit summary. Smilingfrog in my opinion needs to show that henceforth he will behave in a more collaborative, sober and consensual way. -- Alarics (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Alarics. I do want to add that there's worrying signs of ownership of the article on both sides, but in my opinion the onus is on Smilingfrog to get consensus for his changes before they are made, rather than seek to get consensus to remove said changes. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Chill out, guys

This edit war is ridiculous. Both sides need to chill out. There's been disagreements on this page that go all the way to 2004 (gosh I remember those) and while the article was unstable, revert wars were unheard of. I've unprotected the page early. Play nice. How about a nice cup of tea? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh goody, I want teh tarik please. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Poor writing. Very misleading.

"Occupied by the Japanese in World War II, Singapore declared independence, uniting with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963, although it was separated from Malaysia two years later."

There are so many things wrong with that sentence.

It suggests to me that Singapore's declaration of independence was somehow directly linked to the Japanese occupation, and that it happened shortly after the end of the war.

The sentence also seems to say that Singapore led the formation of Malaysia.

"It was separated from Malaysia" seems to imply that a third party separated Singapore from Malaysia against its will.

The sentence ignores self-government, and glosses over the nature of Singapore's unofficial and unrecognised declaration of independence in 1963.

I can't believe that you guys managed to get consensus for a sentence that is so misleading. 219.79.6.155 (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You could, of course, improve on it. I see your points. Brythain (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the "consensus" mean that you are not allowed to change the text? 220.232.233.34 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is important when adding, removing, or changing controversial text. Transforming muddled confusing prose into clear compelling prose, without changing the meaning and without introducing bias, requires no consensus. That's called "copy editing" and it goes on all the time. Just be WP:BOLD and do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Amatulic -- there's no point making any changes to the article, as they will always be undone. Blandness trumps clear writing every time on this page, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.166.15 (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Singapore was kicked out by Malaysia, so there is some truth there though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Again, this part has been discussed many times before and everytime I have to disagree that Singapore was kicked out (per WP:SYNTHESIS). For all your informations, please refer to: A.) Singaporean national referendum, 1962; B.) in 1965, Singapore was seperated from Malaysia following a period of rocky relationship between Malaysia and Singapore (see → People's Action Party–United Malays National Organisation relations with additional reference → Leitch Lepoer, Barbara (1989). "Singapore as Part of Malaysia". Library of Congress Country Studies. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Retrieved 29 January 2011.); and C.) the relevant archived discussion for review. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell Patrick Keith that his book "Ousted!" should have been called "Was Separated From!" Here is the publisher's synopsis:

"Ousted!" is the first book entirely dedicated to the climactic story of Singapore's expulsion from Malaysia. "Ousted!" has been written for all citizens on both sides of the Causeway and for history buffs worldwide. It has taken 40 years for a book to be written on Singapore's extraordinary 1965 expulsion from the Federation of Malaysia "Ousted!" is that book and, as such, is the first publication dedicated to tackling a subject that, up to now, has been considered 'too sensitive', 'too delicate', or 'too controversial'. That it has taken so long for such a book to be released reflects the intensity of political feelings that persist, even after four decades have elapsed. There have been a few segment recollections by politicians. But these, natural, without editorialization,"Ousted!" deals even-handedly with the realities of racial politics.

219.78.167.32 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

From the article: "An island country made up of 63 islands, it is separated from Malaysia by the Straits of Johor to its north and from Indonesia's Riau Islands by the Singapore Strait to its south."

So now we know: don't blame the Tunku or LKY for Singapore's separation from Malaysia -- it's all the fault of the Straits of Johor :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.167.32 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

More poor writing:

"At the time of independence, Singapore had two infantry regiments, which had been commanded by British officers."

Does this mean that British officers were commanding the infantry regiments at the time of independence, or that British officers had previously commanded the infantry regiments but were no longer doing so (possibly a trivial point, since Singapore had been a British colony)? 219.78.166.15 (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

More misleading/poor writing.

"In elections in May 1959 the People's Action Party won a landslide victory and immediately made Singapore a self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first prime minister."

The British made Singapore a self-governing state, not the PAP. The point of the election was to elect the first government of the self-governing state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.167.32 (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad writing persists

" Occupied by the Japanese in World War II, Singapore united with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963"

There is no direct connection between the Japanese occupation and the formation of Malaysia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.167.32 (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously proficient in English. Why not replace the bad writing with your own good writing? You seem to have the time for it. I encourage you to follow up on your perspicacious comments. Brythain (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brythain. But I'm new to Wikipedia. It seems to make changes you have to be a member of the club. Everytime I have made a change so far, somebody with a lot of "Barnstars" seems to revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.167.32 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When you make a change, use an edit summary (bar below text editor) to explain, and people will be far less likely to revert. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, unsigned person, join the club, get yourself a handle we can identify you by, and make good edits. I'm new too. Brythain (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"emphasis on achievement and meritocracy"

Chipmunk removed "meritocracy", but having an emphasis on meritocracy is different from actually implementing meritocracy. In any case, meritocracy describes the government's philosophy succinctly, whether it successfully carries it out or not. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did that based on the agreement reached when this lead was written at Talk:Singapore/2011 archive#New Lead. The objection was not made by me. However, looking at it, the whole sentence at the moment needs to go. There is no mention of the PAP's image in the article. Does anyone have any sources backing this statement? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Trocki, Carl. (2006). Singapore: Wealth, power and the culture of control. London: Routledge. 'The government's meritocracy policy has created a diligent and flexible workforce. The educational system is producing intelligent and highly qualified employees, and the state has been able to ensure a supply of skilled managers for its own enterprises. The dynamism of Singapore is unmistakable evidence of its competitive spirit and will to succeed. On the other hand, the same policies have produced a society that is materialistic and unpleasantly aggressive, or kiasu. One may also wonder whether these policies were already there and only needed some room to grow.' (p. 158) --Brythain (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A poorly written and structured article. A few comments.

Singapore (i/ˈsɪŋəpɔː(r)/), officially the Republic of Singapore, is a Southeast Asian city-state off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, 137 kilometres (85 mi) north of the equator.

An island country made up of 63 islands, it is separated from Malaysia by the Straits of Johor to its north and from Indonesia's Riau Islands by the Singapore Strait to its south.

An island country made up of islands? I would never have guessed. Also, isn't this a bit vague: it sounds to me like Singapore is probably made up of lots of small islands, instead of one main land mass, and lots smaller islands.

The country is highly urbanised with very little primary rainforest remaining, although more land is being created for development through land reclamation.

I don't get the connection here between the lack of remaining rainforest and land reclamation. Also, it's clumsy to use repeat the word “land”.

Isn't Wikipedia is about notability? This articles seems to be saying that land reclamation and lack of primary rainforest is somehow more important than the fact that Singapore is one of richest and most economically successful countries in the world. It's an Asian Tiger, for goodness sake.

Singapore had been a part of various local empires since it was first inhabited in the second century AD.

Is “various” appropriate here? Later in the article it names just only three, and I'd question whether the Sultanate of Johor really was an empire.

It hosted a trading post of the East India Company in 1819 with permission from the Sultanate of Johor.

Why did the trading post only last for one year? Why did it disappear in 1820? Also, it's a clumsy sentence. Much better to make it active: “The Sultanate of Johore gave the East India Company permission to set up a trading post in 1819.”

The British obtained sovereignty over the island in 1824 and Singapore became one of the British Straits Settlements in 1826.

We learned earlier that Singapore comprises 63 islands. So which island became British? Further, isn't “obtained sovereignty” rather vague? Did Britain invade? Did it buy the island from the East Indians? What was the role of the Sultanate of Johore in all this?

Singapore was occupied by the Japanese in World War II and reverted to British rule after the war. It became internally self-governing in 1959.

More mealy-mouthed passiveness. And isn't “occupied” a weak word? Did the Japanese invade, or did they sign a rental agreement? “Internally” is an odd superfluous word too. Did the writer put it in to make a distinction between different types of self-government – just in case we might think Singapore had become “externally” self-governing instead?

Singapore united with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963 and became a fully-independent state two years later after separation from Malaysia.

What a bland and dull way to describe the most important, and traumatic, event in Singapore's history since 1942. Lee Kuan Yew wept on TV when he announced that Singapore had left the federation. But the writer here reduces the birth of independent Singapore to the level of a bureaucratic boundary change or two.

Since then it has had a massive increase in wealth, and is one of the Four Asian Tigers.

“it has had a massive increase in wealth”? Oh, you mean Singapore became much richer? There's another problem with this clause: it seems to say that Singapore had not been getting richer before 1965. Which is nonsense. And as I mentioned earlier, isn't it notable that Singapore is one of the four Asian tigers? Shouldn't that point be made much earlier in the article?

Singapore is the world's fourth leading financial centre, and its port is one of the five busiest ports in the world. The economy heavily depends on the industry and service sectors.

Clumsy repetition of “port”, and a tenuous unsourced claim about being the fourth-leading financial centre. If you click on the link, you discover that only one survey makes that claim. And either say the economy depends on “industry and services” or say it depends on the “industrial and service sectors” (the former is much better). Even so, the statement misses out the importance of exports to Singapore. And it would be a good idea to mention the government's big role in the economy.

Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government. The People's Action Party (PAP) has won every election since the British grant of internal self-government in 1959. The legal system of Singapore has its foundations in the English common law system, but modifications have been made to it over the years, such as the removal of trial by jury.

Why the odd phrasing: ”since the British grant of”? What's wrong with “since Britain granted”? Much simpler.

The legal system of Singapore has its foundations in the English common law system, but modifications have been made to it over the years, such as the removal of trial by jury.

Far too wordy. Make it active. Remove flab such as “over the years”.

The PAP's popular image is that of a strong, experienced and highly-qualified government, backed by a skilled Civil Service and an education system with an emphasis on achievement and meritocracy;

What is the source for this claim? And does the civil service (no need for initial capitals) have an emphasis on achievement and merit also, or is that just an attribute of the education system? Again, much better to be active “...that emphasise(s) achievement and meritocracy.” The verb will tell us whether its both or just education.

but it is perceived by some voters, opposition critics and international observers as being authoritarian and too restrictive on individual freedom.

More wordy passiveness: “it is perceived by”. Why not “but some voters, opposition critics and international observers say the PAP is authoritarian and that it restricts individual freedom too much.”

Some 5 million people live in Singapore, of whom 2.91 million were born locally. Most are of Chinese, Malay or Indian descent.

Again, too may words. Why not say “Most are Chinese, Malay or Indian.” Although that might give the wrong impression that the ethnic groups are about the same size. Much better to be specific: 85% are Chinese, 12% are Malay..... etc (those aren't the correct figures, I know, but they're close enough to give you an idea.)

There are four official languages: English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil.

I think it's notable that Singapore's national language is Malay – the language of a minority. That should be mentioned. Also, what type of Chinese? There are so many mutually unintelligible Chinese languages that to say “I speak Chinese” is as about as useful as saying “I speak European”.

One of the five founding members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, Singapore also hosts the APEC Secretariat,

There is no causal or logical connection between the first and second clause. And hosting is also a bit pretentious and vague: is the APEC Secretariat like the Olympics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piarco girl (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I think you should make all those changes. I'd support most (if not all) of them. Brythain (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

More poor writing: what on earth does this sentence mean?

In popular culture, food items belong to a particular ethnicity, with Chinese, Indian, and Malay food clearly defined.

Pure nonsense. Piarco girl (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just do it! You seem a good writer. Correcting language errors and misleading sentences in the article is unlikely to be controversial. — b3virq3b (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Singapore POV

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: 'Fleetham has been blocked again, for 1 month due to his persistent edit warring behaviour.'

Someone seems to have suspicions that a recently added content does not conform to WP:POV. I assure you, it does. It's not up to me to prove that, but rather for you, and others, to come to a consensus that it doesn't. Please read the policy throughly, come to your own conclusions, and then post here. I'd appreciate it if you would not feel the urge to remove this content while the talk dispute is taking place. The Singapore page isn't a WP:BLP so no need to remove with prejudice. I'm unhappy enough as it is. Fleetham (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Its your problem that you're unhappy, don't make it ours as we have no obligations to share your woes. FWIW, I did invite you over to User talk:MilborneOne#Question to have a chat with an Admin but you refused and went on to add in the wikilink and url. What does that make of me? TBH, I have assumed good faith but you haven't. Secondly, the Admin replied and I'm sure you can see why I was asking a second opinion then. Still disagree? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

“ Sorry I did listen to the link but it is not exactly a reliable source, he says I have been in Singapore for a week - and now he is an expert! If what he says is really true then lots of other far more reliable sources must be around. - as quoted by MilborneOne. ”

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability policy.

• @Fleetham: And another thing, you've been blocked twice for edit warring (on other article pages), I don't think you understand fully what that means when I lodge a complaint against you later, do you? FWIW, you can quote a reliable source (such as an international news agency) but if that source isn't spewing out words that are verifiable (per WP:Verifiability) by anyone of us (especially when we do check it personally), the biased/skewed content has got to go... whether you like it or not. This has entirely nothing to do with WP:BLP and all that caboose, mind you. Think about it. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your revert. Fleetham (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right, you are now one revert away from 3RR but I'm going to report you anyway, seeing that you have no intention to discuss this in whatsoever manner. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• As quoted by another admin to Fleetham on his talk page. I rest my case. Out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Three points.

1. It is not valid to take the line "as long as discussion is going on the disputed content must stay in the article." There is no "keep it in" default rule.
2. You are mistaken in saying "It's not up to me to prove that, but rather for you, and others, to come to a consensus that it doesn't." The relevant policy, which you can read at WP:BURDEN, says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
3. Simply asserting your case on a talk page and then making no response to other users' comments apart from "I've reverted your revert" does not constitute discussing the issue.

You do not seem to fully grasp the extent to which Wikipedia works by collaboration, and persistently trying to force your way through does not work. Since you have already more than once been blocked for edit warring you must be aware of that. Please avoid being blocked for much longer, perhaps indefinitely, by trying to work collaboratively. Use discussion to try to reach an agreement, not an empty show of discussion to justify insisting on your version. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with Fleetham's edits. He has not broken the '3 revert rule', he has provided a reasonable source and Wikipedia is open for everyone to edit. I don't see why Dave and a few others should be so hostile. However, I don't agree that the gov't has monopolies in many sectors of SG's economy. The gov't has stakes in many sectors through investments from GIC or Temasek but most sectors are competitive, mostly nearing perfect competition or oligopolies in a few sectors (telecom,internet etc). There are no monopolies in Singapore. If you can think of even one single monopoly in S'pore, feel free to post below.

Cheers! Smilingfrog (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can think of even one single monopoly in S'pore, feel free to post below.

SPH publishes all newspapers (although to be fair, Today is a joint venture with MediaCorp).

MediaCorp runs all the domestic TV stations

PUB is the monopoly water and sewage utility

SP owns the electricity transmission grid

SP also is the sole natural and town gas distributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.183.249 (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I think that settles the ambiguity of the challenge posed by the frog from inside the well, which I've left a note to warn him as well. Shape up or ship out, that's my last warning to Kermit. Fleetham on the other hand, has been duly BLOCKED for 1 month due to his persistent edit-warring behaviour, this is his third block this year. That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics in Singapore, Stop at Two, Have Three or More, etc.

I've started (a currently 19KB) article Eugenics in Singapore concerning past and present population control policies implemented by the government, which seems to at least affected the population structure somewhat, in addition I am getting sources which will estimate the impact of policy versus the demographic transition; in any case this sheds a different perspective on the development of Singapore. Is there any space in the article for it? In any case, I do think public campaigns in Singapore (soon to be created) are quite remarkable, see the likes of the Singapore Courtesy Campaign and posters here, that help contribute to Singapore's unique reputation. Cheers. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any great level of detail is notable, but perhaps something could be added to demographics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Are "Permanent Residents" really permanent residents?

Some of my friends who are "Permanent Residents" say that their residency is not permanent at all: they have to reapply every five or ten years.

So is it more accurate to describe what the government calls "Permanent Residents" as people with long-term residency visas? Piarco girl (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No... permanent residency is a status found in many nations in which the PR does not need re-entry visas, work permits, and other such annoying documents — but yet is not a citizen. Holding PR status is deemed 'permanent' because it is indefinitely renewable, and as long as maintained (for example, by staying in the country for the minimum annual period) can eventually lead to naturalisation. Most of the time, the PR has to reapply for this status if staying away from the country for too long. Also, a long-term residency visa generally does not impose obligations such as registration for national service (SG, US and several others) and does not include benefits such as easier access to schools, housing etc.Brythain (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good explanation. Piarco girl (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, a permanent resident, once he's gotten the status, can indeed live, work etc in Singapore indefinitely. The only catch is that in Singapore, PRs do require re-entry permits (usually granted for 5 years at a time), and that if this permit is not renewed, he will lose his PR status if he ever leaves Singapore. Jpatokal (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Which tends to support my original point. PR status is, in practical terms, not really permanent. Piarco girl (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing particularly unique to Singapore about this, most all PR statuses around the world are subject to conditions of some sort. Only citizenship is (nearly) permanent. Jpatokal (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that nothing is permanent in the extreme. But PR status is easily renewed, even from overseas. See http://www.ica.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=152 . I also think that the question "Are 'Permanent Residents' really permanent residents?" is like saying "Are 'Permanent Teeth' really permanent teeth?" in that yes, they are until removed by age and uselessness. :) Brythain (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• @Brythain: Good point~!! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Government censorship policies have not hindered economic growth"

Government censorship policies have not hindered economic growth.[169]

I read the reference. There is no econometric analysis to support the statement. It should be removed. Piarco girl (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Proving a negative is always difficult. I have no idea why this statement is there, come to think of it. Did anyone assert otherwise? Brythain (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. The sentence is irrelevant and doesn't make the slightest sense. Every gov't has its own censorship policies, why would that affect the economy? You can get any news you want in S'pore, it isn't as if the media is blocked to the extend of China or even Malaysia.

Smilingfrog (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dÿrlegur, 28 August 2011

Tony Tan Keng Yam will become the president of Singapore on Sep 1st, 2011

Dÿrlegur (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please state exactly what change you are requesting to the article and supply a source. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony Tan is currently the President-elect of Singapore. Please add in his name below the President's name under Government.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_707453.html

MrJacky (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Buaidh, 8 September 2011

Please change the See also section to the following:

==See also==
{{satop|Geography|Eurasia|Asia|Southeast Asia|Singapore}}
*[[International rankings of Singapore]]
{{clear}}

Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Land Area of Singapore

I'm not sure why the land area indicated kept changing. According to the Department of Statistics Singapore, the land area stands at 712.4 square kilometers at mid-2010 estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvml93 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Buaidh, 15 September 2011

{tn|{edit protected|answered=no}} When possible, please update the See also section to the following:

== See also ==

{{satop|Geography|Eurasia|Asia|Southeast Asia|ASEAN|Singapore}}
* [[ASEAN]]
* [[Commonwealth of Nations]]
* [[International rankings of Singapore]]
{{clear}}

Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)  Buaidh  14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Singapore is not a Commonwealth Realm, and ASEAN and the Commonwealth of Nations appear not only in the article, but in the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would that change make the (incorrect) claim that Singapore is a Commonwealth Realm? Surely it would just say that Singapore is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.183.249 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been edited since it was initially posted, it used to include the Commonwealth Realms portal. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Procedural; removing the 'prot edit request' because this is not a simple case of "Change X to Y" - if consensus is obtained, please re-request.  Chzz  ►  02:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Buaidh, 26 September 2011

Resubmitting the following: == See also == Template:Satop

• ASEAN
• Commonwealth of Nations
• International rankings of Singapore

 Buaidh  20:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you address the concerns above and endeavour to come to a consensus instead of just "resubmitting" the same request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LlywelynII, 22 September 2011

No need for it now, but if/when the page is unprotected, please note

== Etymology == <!--linked-->

to avoid various edits to "Name", "Names", "History", etc., as section is linked from List of country-name etymologies via Etymology of Singapore. — LlywelynII 00:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.204.29.145, 27 September 2011

Hello sir, The word singapore is not derived from malay. It is derived from the Tamil. Singapore --> Singam(Lion) + Puram(City) This is definitely Tamil. Please discuss with other and change the error in the page. Nivas28 (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Nivas: You are not the first Tamil editor to make such an arguement and you're most certainly not the last one to do so. FWIW, I suspect that you guys are not locals otherwise why are you lacking so severely in the knowledge of that department. Please take a look at another article page → Names of Singapore ← to make your complaint, this talk page here is hardly the most appropriate venue for making you case known. Out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm Indonesian, Indonesian language is derived from many languages such as Portuguese, Hindi, Dutch, Chinese, etc. but mainly from Bahasa Melayu (not high Melayu, but from Melayu Pasar-Market which uses among traders at the ports). Concerning 'Singapore' term, I think it is derived from Malay as same with Indonesian language: Singa (Lion) and Pura (City), although Singa and Pura certainly are derived mightbe from Hindi, because in Indonesia has no Lion as Singapore hasn't too. I hope it will make clear to everyone. [User:Gsarwa|Gsarwa]] (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

edit request from Fru1tbat, 28 September 2011

Under Sport and recreation, "Formula One World Championship" links to Singapore Grand Prix. This is a bit of an easter egg. It might be better for that text to link to Formula One and something else to link to the grand prix article (maybe mention the grand prix explicitly, like: "Singapore began hosting a round of the Formula One World Championship, the Singapore Grand Prix, in 2008." If that's too clunky, maybe just link "hosting a round", though I generally try to avoid that sort of thing. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but please leave your proposal for a few hours/days to allow others to comment before applying {{editprotected}}. Disabled for now, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do this very often (make edit requests), so I'm not familiar with the etiquette – I figured this would be considered non-controversial (it's certainly something I would have done without hesitation had the page been non-protected). --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, that's fine. But could you please give a specific request rather than suggesting a range of different options, because then I don't have to think :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough! How about: "Singapore began hosting a round of the Formula One World Championship, the Singapore Grand Prix, in 2008." ? --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)