Jump to content

Talk:Singapore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 22 July 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Singapore/2011 archive.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateSingapore is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 12, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 25, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 26, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 24, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 16, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 28, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 2, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 9, 2004.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:WP1.0

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)[reply]

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: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

You could, of course, improve on it. I see your points. Brythain (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Singapore was kicked out by Malaysia, so there is some truth there though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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.
  • 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. [7];
  2. [8].
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore&oldid=440846548"