Talk:Singapore

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

"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: [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)

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)

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)

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. [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)

• 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)

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.