Talk:Hawker centre

revert

sorry, but that was both hard to read and extremely opinionated. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawker centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113001758/http://www.waisikkai.com/ to http://www.waisikkai.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about recent edit wars

I noticed through the edit history that this article has been the subject of several edit wars over two versions of the article - these being the current existing version and this old version. While I understand that the latter was most recently reverted due to the user who edited that version being blocked, I would like to seek a discussion on which version would be better (based on their own merits) so as to avoid future edit wars down the road. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This article has a few series of reverts, but no real content edit wars. The particular "old version" instance you mention was pov-pushing wp:block evasion. Other items that may appear like edit wars were similar POV-pushing stuff, like [1]. Food articles in this region attract a lot of this sort of stuff, most of it merit-less. CMD (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

JaventheAldericky: I don't doubt Chipmunkdavis' competence over other topic areas, but they made a judgement of error here. The claim that the "old version" was "pov-pushing wp:block evasion" is frankly preposterous at best, as just because a sockpuppet was historically present on this article doesn't necessarily mean that subsequent additions were made under the same intention. They had me mistakenly blocked for no apparent reason thanks to this, which thankfully has been reversed after further context was provided. As I've mentioned, "Hawker centre" made the news in the region back in 2020 as it was made an "UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage" (UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists) for Singapore, and I had taken the liberty to add the infobox because Wikipedia specifically had an infobox (Template:Infobox intangible heritage) for it. The exact same infobox was also added by a user named "Robertsky" here, which obviously isn't some sockmaster, but for some reason was removed which was why I had re-added it. This isn't "pov-pushing", there are countless WP:RS for this everywhere to back it up (e.g. BBC, The Guardian or National Geographic, etc.), as well as on UNESCO's website itself. ThungKrug (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, you did not edit to insert an infobox, you edited to change the entire topic of the page[2]. CMD (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

imo, the article could be split further into Hawker centre and Hawker centre in Singapore. But only if there are improvements (sourcing, content expansion) to the entries on Hong Kong's and other countries' development. – robertsky (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at content, is hawker center (or similar) only used by just Singapore? If yes, then this article is fine as a pure Singapore related article. If there are sources indicating the name Hawker centers (or similar) are used in other countries, a general article and a split to Hawker center in Singapore will be needed.--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not Singapore exclusive, which isn't that surprising as the core is simply taking existing hawker culture and shifting it to specific locations. The various pov-pushings back and forth on this article are in fact quite reflective of real-life back and forth over the issue. The Straits Times even has an article on similar internet comments. CMD (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Even prior to UNESCO's classification, don't Malaysians use "kopitiams" for their own permanent food stalls instead? The term "Hawker centre" was first coined by Singapore to stop street foods and set up permanent establishments for hygiene purposes. In contrast, spontaneous street foods stalls are still prevalent throughout Malaysia. I honestly also doubt that English speakers in Hong Kong actually use the term "Hawker centre" in colloquial speech to describe their food establishments. While its possible that some Malaysians use "Hawker centre" due to geographical proximity, it very much remains a Singaporean term and foreigners associate it with that country as we've seen with non-Malaysian/Singaporean news sources, and that it was adopted by some Malaysians due to the significant intermingling between Manglish and Singlish. It also remains that the Malaysian government also had the opportunity to co-bid hawker culture as Malaysian as well after the Singaporean government publicly announcing its bid, but they didn't, despite the fact that UNESCO's classification could be done for multiple countries (e.g. Pantun, inscription also in 2020). ThungKrug (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(Additional comments) Chipmunkdavis, Hawker centres and just "Hawkers" in Hong Kong are not the same thing. Its similarities end at the word hawker itself. The term in Hong Kong is more in line with vendors selling inexpensive goods on the street that change locations often such as with push carts, while Hawker centres are permanent establishments that exclusively sells meals such as food and drinks. A word can have multiple definitions, and this article is not focused on goods, which is why it wouldn't make much sense to mention Hawker centres on the Hawkers in Hong Kong article as well as vice versa. ThungKrug (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to avoid getting into exactly the thing the Straits Times article talked about, I will instead point to a statement by the Sing gov at the time of the UNESCO application: "There is some misconception that the nomination is about proving origins, being better or unique. Actually, that's wrong. The nomination and the purpose of the representative list is to demonstrate how important (the cultural element) is to the community and country, and how they are committed to safeguarding this intangible cultural heritage". - NHB representative. CMD (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the Malaysian section of the article (as well as its sole cited source), I think it may be more suitable to split the Malaysian section into a "Hawkers in Malaysia" article, given that the cited article focuses more in-depth on the history of hawkers in Malaysia rather than Malaysia's hawker centres (there is no mention of any names of hawker centres in Malaysia, outside of the "their evolution into ultra-modern hawker centres" reference, implying lack of notability with respect to hawker centres in Malaysia, but at the same time more notability towards the general hawker culture in Malaysia). Should a split of this sort occur, then then the Malaysian section of this article can be moved over there as-is (i.e as a section of the new article).

Similarly, the section for Hong Kong can also be merged into the existing Hawkers in Hong Kong article for the same reason, in that hawker centres in Hong Kong form a component in the greater culture of hawkers in Hong Kong.

This would then leave only Singapore's section left, which can then be moved into e.g "Hawker centres in Singapore" (after a rewrite of the old variant is finished, more below) The "Hawker centre" page can then be turned into a disambiguation page to link all three.

Also sorry for the late reply, I've been busy irl. JaventheAldericky (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@JaventheAlderick: I was the one that wrote the Malaysian section at one go to have a place to insert the photo into. My general opinion at the moment is that neither the Malaysian nor Singapore sections have enough content to merit a separate page at the moment, and the page format is actually quite common where each country gets a individual section. It is sort of like the Official state car page where cars with enough notability can branch out onto a separate page and this one need not be a disambiguation. I will eventually create a new page entirely for Singapore if no one else does it. Seloloving (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@JaventheAlderick: I agree with your proposal. Hawker centre is just too vague, with differing definitions of both 'hawker' and 'hawker centre', so it's probably for the best to convert this article title into a disambiguation page with the various countries split into Hawkers in Hong Kong, (already exists) Hawker culture in Singapore (doesn't exist yet), and Hawkers in Malaysia (doesn't exist yet), etc. Per WP:D, which does mention that it is used for "resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic", I'm confident that this would satisfy all sides in the long run, avoiding future edit wars in the future. ThungKrug (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My two cents in the matter is that I don't expect a new user to come out of nowhere and begin trying to revert to a version created by a blocked sock. I have always strove to assume good faith at all costs but this is stretching my limits and I was not born yesterday. In the spirit of it however, I would like to give the following opinions.

All four sources in INSTF's version only depict the rise of hawker culture in Singapore and the government's move to shift them into integrated centers. None specifically claim that the concept arose in Singapore. Even the new "most commonly associated with" phrase is not indicated in the sources. The SCMP's sentence "Hawker centres – arguably one of the most recognisable symbols of the Lion City’s culture and heritage" does not imply that it's is most commonly associated with Singapore or exclusive to it. National Geographic likewise does not claim anything of the sort and simply tells its history. I do not support adding the UNESCO tag to a page which is meant to cover the general topic. This page should not be exclusive to Singapore.

While I am generally in favour of a separate page entirely, considering how Singapore's hawker culture is covered by many relevant sources, this topic has been tainted by INSTF's involvement. Any reinstatement of INSTF's versions must be rejected outright with no compromises. Even if I think it's written from a neutral point of view, I will revert it immediately as INSTF is not to be encouraged. Per Hawker culture in Hong Kong, I would support a version for Singapore if there's enough content to cover it. At present, per this revision there is not enough to merit a separate page, and I would strongly encourage ThungKrug to cease pursuing the matter. I may eventually take up the task, but not now. Seloloving (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Seloloving: May I ask who do you mean by "INSTF"? If you are referring to the blocked user Ineedtostopforgetting, he has not made any edits to this article. If you are referring to ThungKrug, he was unblocked because CheckUser evidence says he's unrelated to the blocked Ineedtostopforgetting. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@JaventheAlderick: The article has been targeted by INSTF's socks numerous times. You will see the names ProllySauce, Mochikoka, DidIWikiThat and CornelloCreme in the edit history constantly trying to reinforce Singapore's hawker culture to be the main topic, all which have been blocked. In addition, there is a certain modus operandi of their accounts which is extremely noticeable beside the pages they constantly target, which I will not divulge but you may email me if you wish to know. When I meant reinstatement of INSTF's versions, I am referring to ThungKrug's attempts to refocus the page on Singapore and reinstating the content which socks of INSTF contributed.

Per AGF, ThungKrug is innocent of any sockpupptery, which is why I went through the trouble to rebut all the sources ThungKrug has claimed are valid. I hope that clears things up. Seloloving (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough; the earliest version I can find of the Singapore-focused variant is from Mochikoka, whom you've mentioned. (diff found over here) In view of this I agree that the spoiled variant should be rewritten to dissociate the (potential) content away from INSTF's socks, particularly the History section and the Covid-19 pandemic subsection (the former because that's where most of the problematic content is, the latter because its out of date (i.e there is no mention of the Phase 2HA measures and their impact). I'm not sure if I have time to rewrite the variant though... JaventheAldericky (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage

As this article has had a history of some back-and-forth reverts, this acts as a courtesy notice. I'm planning on adding the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) template, which are based upon the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists. This should be uncontroversial, as they do not originate from dubious/unreliable sources, and are common throughout other articles which are on the list as well. I also don't plan on changing anything else as it would probably end up being contentious, no thanks to the headaches the sockmaster has created for other users by damaging their credibility whenever they edit here. While such discussions has went stale, I'm still supportive of JaventheAlderick's proposal of splitting this article into their various countries to prevent future problems, and turning this into a disambiguation page. "Hawker centre" is just too broad. ThungKrug (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

ThungKrug, still disagree. The UNESCO page specifically inscribes Singapore's "Hawker culture", not hawker centers.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with broad pages of a specific term covering multiple countries per Official state car, and hawker centers are not necessarily always about hawker culture, which may exist separately. Seloloving (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)