Talk:Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Singapore is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Singapore:

Improvement of Singapore article

In the Independence - 1965 section, the last two paragraphs are duplicated - remove one of them.

  • Singapore_in_Malaysia is its own article which should be linked in the 2nd paragraph.
  • Demographics: Fix typing error in the link to "2009 global financial criss[sic]."
  • Etymology: The name of singapore may be come from Tamil. In tamil, it means "living place of lions"(singa - lion and pore - place) which is denoting the forest island.
  • History: include more events from 1965 to 1990
  • Geography: include more on geology
  • Economy: mention labor relations, employment conditions, unemployment statistics, class or gender distinctions, CPF as retirement pension
  • Education: include information on tertiary education, MOE policies(broad-based education, MTL policy), rankings on PISA(Programme for International Student Assessment) and TIMSS(Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study)
  • Expand section on health and medicine
  • Art: mention music and literature
  • Incomplete / needed citations, especially in History and Military sections.
  • Mention urban planning and its significance and how land use and density is distributed and tie in with rest of content
  • To include a section on Singapore Science & Technology
  • Better coverage for media section
  • NEW Hi I can't edit due to the semi-protection but can somebody add the information about Christmas Island and Cocos Islands to our history and geography? Singapore was compensated 2.9 million pounds by Australia for giving up Christmas Island to Australia in 1957 and there was no protest by then Lim Yew Hock, and Christmas Island used Singapore stamps and was governed by Singapore until that point in time. Oh and I dont know how to make an edit request so Im typing here... Vigelic (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Development of Singapore's sub-pages

  • More detail on to South Indian Hindu empires (e.g. the Majpahit) that preceded the Malay Sultanates and influenced the course of history and culture for Malaya and Singapore.
  • Expand and improve Government of Singapore (moving less prominent material from Politics of Singapore)which tends to come across as personal and subjective, and create a section to be integrated into the Singapore article and tied in with rest of content
  • More balanced "treatment" (or coverage) of all races and religions rather than a centrism which focuses on one more than the others.
  • More insight into colonial era British defence forces, including the Singapore Volunteer Corps, the Scottish regiment, the British Navy presence, the various batteries posted all over the island.

Review & Revision, FAC Process

  • Bring over references from subpages.
  • Others as appropriate.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  Quality: C-Class
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Some observations[edit]

I came to this page because I needed to get an overview of modern Singapore. Let me say right off that it is good to read with loads of information. The following comments are just my impressions as a reader.

Introduction The introduction is a bit in your face. There is such a wide coverage and so much detail that it it's a bit hard to digest. Suggest that it be summarised and some of the data be saved for later sections.

Pictures I feel that the pictures are too small (of course they can be expanded by clicking on them)

Tourism I haven't checked this, but surely Singapore has a large tourist industry. There is no coverage of this in the article.

Nature Yes, Singapore is a go-go nation with high urbanisation and land development but even though it's a small island there must be some areas of 'natural' beauty. Nothing of this is covered either in the text or by the pictures.

This is not meant to be a criticism of the Singapore page. On the contrary I enjoyed reading it. It's just my initial impression.

CPES (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To add to above. In government section, we learn that 6 MP's were elected from the opposition. This is MEANINGLESS unless we're told what proportion of the total that is, and unless we're told how many were previously in Parliment. This is not neutral POV, imho.Abitslow (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The case of Shanmugam Murugesu[edit]

This appears to be a key point in the country's history. Not only many in Singapore but around the world were shocked by the hanging execution of a man for marijuana. The demonstrations that occurred in the country itself are worthy of note here, being the first large public questioning of a man killed by their justice system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Execution and civil liberties may seem to be important to you such that this is important enough to be included in the Wikipedia article about Singapore. Clue: It isn't. This article isn't about civil liberties. While you may want to champion your cause, this is the wrong place to do it. Stay relevant to the topic. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Singapore finally finds a voice in death row protest

'The Canton meeting room at Singapore's drab Furama Hotel is an unlikely venue for history to be made. But on Friday night this bland setting hosted an unprecedented event for the tightly controlled island republic. Organisers of a three-hour vigil for Shanmugam Murugesu, who is likely to be executed on Friday for possession of 1 kilo of marijuana, said it was the nation's first public gathering organised solely by citizens demanding a change to the law.'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/08/johnaglionby.theobserver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That was nine years ago! -- Alarics (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

hi alarics. not sure what your point is? a historic event is not based on its currency in time. it could have been 1,000 years ago, or today. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And your point is? I refer you to Wikipedia's policy about giving undue weight to minority views. Just because someone said something doesn't mean it should be included. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

hi 82.28.198.237, do you have a reliable source that the Guardian article covered a minority view? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is that now, nine years on, we can see that protest didn't in fact have any effect on policy. -- Alarics (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Smart Nation artcle[edit]

There is a proposal to convert Smart Nation, an article about Singapore's 'Smart Nation' project into a redirect to Smart city. Content from that article may be appropriate to add to this article and I am inviting people here to enter the discussion on talk:Smart Nation. PeterEastern (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the map in ASEAN (I can add a larger dot if editors think it looks too small, as in the case of Brunei)[edit]

As I said in the article about Brunei, Singapore is a small country, so it may be barely visible in this map (and the same concern I have about Brunei, so I've edited this comment in the Brunei article Talk Page). If the editors about Singapore have any problem with it, I can add a quite larger dot on Singapore's location (and the same is applyable to Brunei). Thanks for reading and for all of your suggestions. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 3:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

singapore english[edit]

This section should be changed: "singapore english is based on british english" seems to refer to the standard written language but is ambiguous; there are a few lines discussing the relationship between the standard language and local creole but this needs work as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telmac (talkcontribs) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Democracy Index[edit]

So on 10.03.2015 YJAX made an edit, 'upgrading' Singapore to a 'flawed democracy'.

However, the most recent Democracy Index available from 2013 (Democracy index 2013: Democracy in limbo) still classifies it as a 'hybrid regime' - so I don't see what's the basis for that edit.CryptoCopter (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The latest Democracy Index in 2014 moved Singapore up to the 'flawed democracies' category.--Joshua Talk to me What I've done? 10:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government began in 1959. The dominance of the PAP, coupled with one of the world's lowest levels of press freedom and most suppressed civil liberties and political rights, has led to Singapore being the lowest ranked developed country in the Democracy Index, classified as a flawed democracy." - This source needs to be cited. Furthermore, stating that the cause of the classification is due to the dominance of the PAP without any reference at all makes it sound like original research. This is one of the only claims made in the introduction without being verified. If this does not get fixed, I will delete it. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It's on pages 13 and 20 of that report. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Panoramic view of central district[edit]

Can anyone verify that the panoramic view of the central district (last image in the article) is legitimate? The entire right 3rd of the image looks clone-stamped together with all of the duplicate buildings, but I suppose it's possible the city has actually been built like that to save costs. Some guy (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The picture looks alright to me. Those seemly identical buildings on the right are HDB public housing blocks, which are built closely in clusters to save space and costs.--Joshua Talk to me What I've done? 13:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, very interesting. Thank you. Some guy (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

mera name-jay prakash Kumar (sahani) and lalbabu kumar =village- musawa bhedihari (sugauli-east champaran (Bihar)[edit]

p.s Sugauli p.o sapaha village musawa bhedihari (east champaran)bihar (p.n-845435) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayprakashsahani07 (talkcontribs) 11:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Paragraph, First line[edit]

Surely "belonged to" might be better read as "hosted". Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.45.34 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Belonged to" is fine. The sentence means that the island was ruled by a series of empires (Srivijaya, Majapahit, Malacca, Johor, to name a few). "Hosted" may imply that there were several (mini) empires located on such a small island, which is most likely not the case.--Joshua Talk to me What I've done? 10:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Credit rating[edit]

Why is the credit rating considered important enough for the lead? Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Era Styles[edit]

I think that, unless quoting a document or setting a chronological premise (you know, all the usual Wikipedia exceptions for this kind of thing), all instances of an calendre era should be in the BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) format, rather than the BC/AD (Before Christ/After Death [of Christ]) format. Although identical in meaning, the former has a more neutral connotation to it, which I think not only is more socially appropriate for a general encyclopedic platform, but also better fits Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Apparently, though, there are some who disagree with me (my edit in the 2nd paragraph, Top section got reverted), so I figured I would post a thing on the Talk page to discuss it. :) What do you all think? SarahTehCat (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Just an addition: I did not know about WP:ERA, so I apologise. Nevertheless, I still think that this would be a good idea overall, at least for the points I mentioned above, and I'd like to hear what you all think. SarahTehCat (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As established by our MOS at WP:ERAS, we must leave AD/BC vs. CE/BCE as-is in all articles, unless there is consensus that an article-specific reason exists that requires one or the other. Without that, we must leave this article as it stands, using AD/BC.
I can't think of any such reasoning that might apply here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I prefer AD/BC and would rather leave it as-is. By the way, I can't believe "AD" Monroe is commenting on this. Did you create that account just to discuss this issue or is that a coincidence? It's pretty awesome. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: Two things:

1. True. Good point. 👍

2. I agree with @Kendall-K1: I would like to know if you did that, too. Kind of amusing, actually. Haha...

SarahTehCat (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Section[edit]

Hi, to which section this photo is the best,

Singapore garden 2014

as there is no section of the most beautiful garden of Asia ? Rafael Guri (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any appropriate section on the current article as there isn't anything mentioned about parks in Singapore. --Graphium 06:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't really get what you mean in the later sentences. Also I think there is no need for the specific descriptions of those parks/gardens in the city area in this article. Another editor may revert the changes if they disagree; there are quite a few editors who regularly watch and edit this article. --Graphium 07:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Parks are mentioned in the Geography section. I agree with Graphium that there is no need to go into specifics about a particular park. What Rafael had described sounds like the two domes in Gardens by the Bay, which should be (and already is) covered in that article.--Joshua Talk to me What I've done? 05:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Flawed democracy and income inequality[edit]

The info about being ranked a "flawed democracy" (an upgrade actually) and having high income inequality has been in the article for a while (since March 2015 and at least April 2014, respectively). I'm starting discussion about its removal per WP:BRD. Previous consensus/status quo is that it stay in the article for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Inviting Smilingfrog to this conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, the edits to the lead are new, and hence, it is best to discuss them before pushing them through, especially upon the first revert, as per WP:BRD/WP:CON.
The new edits to the lead state that:
1. Singapore has the highest income inequality in the developed world
2. Singapore is the lowest ranked developed country in the Democracy Index, classified as a "flawed democracy"
The old edits in the article itself you talk about (since March 2015 and at least April 2014, respectively) state:
1. The Economist ranks Singapore as a "flawed democracy", the second best rank of four, in its "Democracy Index".
2. It (Singapore) also has one of the highest income inequalities among developed countries, being below Hong Kong and above the United States.
Compare them, the new edits in the lead doesn't match the old edits written below in the article, in fact, they are quite different.
I have looked at the sources for the edits. The sources do not mention that Singapore is the lowest-ranked developed country anywhere, this is the main reason why I reverted the new edits to the lead. The edits to the lead is original research and Wikipedia has a policy against original research WP:NOR. The new edits to the lead are also not verifiable as per Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement.
Never mind that it is original research and not verifiable and shouldn't be written on Wikipedia. Having looked at the lists myself, Singapore is not the lowest-ranked 'developed country' on both lists, so these edits are also pretty much wrong. On the Democracy Index, I can see Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, etc below Singapore. Weirdly, Hong Kong (whose general population are not even allowed to vote), is placed above Singapore. Great job, 'The Economist Newspaper'. BTW, The Economist itself admitted that Singapore has free and fair elections in one of its publications. So go figure. Similarly, I just took a quick look at the List of countries by income equality. I can easily spot developed entities such as Hong Kong SAR, Chile, Mexico, and South Africa below Singapore. In fact, Singapore is just 5 ranks below the USA on this table. The 'Democracy Index' is published by The Economist Group, a London-based newspaper business (British-centric and not Asian/Middle Eastern/Indian centric (whom, by the way, form the majority in the world)) with a circulation of only a few million. It is not an unbiased truly international organisation (such as the World Bank, UN, IMF, WHO etc). I am not sure it is worth writing about such 'indexes' at all, in both the lead and content.
Thanks and best,
Smilingfrog (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Would like to point out that just because Smilingfrog's edits were new ones made to old writeup, this can also be said of the contentious unsourced edit when it was first introduced, just that no one noticed it ( subtle vandalism). If it shouldn't have been there in the first place, it shouldn't have been there, period. A few additional points to note:

  • The line about "flawed democracy" is badly written: Going by the reference, it should more accurately be written that Singapore is the lowest ranked country in the "flawed democracy" category. The way it is misleadingly written now, implies it is the lowest ranked developed country in the whole list, not just that category;
  • There is no consistent listing of "developed" countries (i.e. see The World Factbook list of developed countries which does not include Singapore, same with other countries which results in inconsistent rankings; and leads to the last point)
  • Since there is no consistent list of "developed" countries, there is no way to systematically quantify any statement that goes "lowest of developed countries".

As Smilingfrog pointed out, its not listed in any article explicitly that Singapore was ranked the lowest, and even if it did, that source should be explicitly cited in prose due to the 3 issues I just mentioned. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let's revert the inequality stuff to the old wording. You are both right that the source doesn't mention the developed part. As for the flawed democracy, I see no problem with the wording. It's summarized as required by LEAD, and it gives the source of the ranking. But since "developed" is ill-defined, let's remove that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think clearly, the new edits shouldn't be in the lead as they are original research as per WP:NOR. As per WP:CON WP:BRD, I think we will revert the new edits. Your latest edits are quite problematic as the table is meant to be read as a whole, by listing the results per section, it is not WP:IMPARTIAL and probably enters original research WP:NOR realm. Also, as per WP:LEAD , it is clear that they are not suitable (not important, relevant, vital and neutral enough) to be in the lead.
My second point. The 'Democracy Index' is published by The Economist Group, a London-based newspaper business (British-centric and not Asian/Middle Eastern/Indian centric (whom, by the way, form the majority in the world)) with a circulation of only a few million. It is not an unbiased truly international organisation (such as the World Bank, UN, IMF, WHO etc). Ditto for the Freedom in the World report by Freedom House (a small USA based organisation with only 150 staff).
As per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views are covered. These sources fail the WP:RS test glaringly. The work/views of a group of 150 (mostly) Americans that form Freedom House is hardly reliable and hardly covers all majority views (i.e. Asian/Arabic/Indian, etc). They shouldn't be in the content itself, much less in the lead.WP:LEAD. Something from a neutral WP:RS large international organisation such as the World Bank, UN, WHO etc is more suitable.
Just as futher example, I don't see it being important (and neutral/impartial) enough to write that according to Xinhua the USA ranks low on racial equality as there is still seggregation between races. The USA is the second lowest ranked developed country on the Gini index, and has the highest rate of incaseration/gun crimes/rapes/drug use/ amongst developed country and is ranked the lowest on the second tier of the table. Such statistics should be compared globally (as they are meant to be) instead of only with a small group of nations (perhaps 5% of nations). Obviously, writing such things distort the fact that the USA is a largely peaceful country and has a high standard of living globally where different races largely interact peacefully. Such edits fail WP:IMPARTIAL WP:LEAD WP:RS WP:NOR.
Thanks and best,
Smilingfrog (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You say I think we will revert the new edits but there's not consensus for that. Please explain how this is original research. You misunderstand what RS is. Sources need not have wide readership or even be neutral to be considered reliable.
Frankly I'd love to see that info about the USA in the article. The USA is hardly peaceful, especially when compared to its peers. And it's more than 5% of government bodies. More than 5% of population, political power, and economic resources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, all of us here (Ujongbakuto, Zhanzhao, me) clearly disagree with the new edits. WP:CON WP:BRD clearly states that the new edits shouldn't be pushed through. As for issues with the new edits, it is not just RS, but WP:IMPARTIAL WP:LEAD WP:RS WP:NOR as well.
Best.
Smilingfrog (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015[edit]

In the entry for "Singapore", in the last sentence of the section "Etymology", please change "SG15" to "SG50". This is in reference to Singapore's Golden Jubilee, a.k.a. the country's 50th anniversary. As this is my first edit request, I'm not sure what sort of "verifiable and reliable sources" to provide, but perhaps www.singapore50.sg is sufficient (where the logo appears a few times)? In any case, as a long-term resident of Singapore, I can confirm the ubiquitous "SG50" branding. 202.156.55.117 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Millionairs?[edit]

The referenced article states the rate of millionaire "resident households" while the wiki just says "households". Do "resident households" include all workers in the country including foriegn workers. If it does, what if they live 8 to a dormitory, is that a household? What we really need here is a per capita rate of millionaires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.127.152 (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015[edit]

118.200.240.3 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a neutral point of view for this article[edit]

This article reads like a promo for Singapore--too much about how wonderful and efficient Singapore is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave from louisville (talkcontribs) 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree.

The problems I have identified are: blatant advertising, superfluous content, lack of paragraph flow, and lengthy text. I have transferred unneeded facts here should they be of relevance in the future. I have also removed blatant advertising without transferring such content here.

- ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

How is this different from London, New York City and others? There seems to be more superlatives and "touristy" information in their leads. Socio-economic standings are highlighted in most country leads; its simply that Singapore has more metrics to cite than most, but not a basis to say its advertising or superfluous.
  • Forbes is a well-cited source. If your dispute is with their methodology, it should be raised with them - [methodology]. I did a search and could not find any disputes - [search for disputes]
There is no citations in this article's lead (so far) as compared to others - previous editors and myself followed the wikipedia lead guidelines, but most are cited in the body. If you dispute any statements, you could have placed "citation needed" in-line or re-worded them accordingly. Everything written should be backed up, and there is a dispute resolution process if you dispute the citations. Wrigleygum (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I live here in Singapore and I'm a Swiss citizen. The only "honest" Index in my POV is the "SPI", see also: List of countries by Social Progress Index, so being fair, my home country is ranked #3 because we provide all required data. Singapore is currently "not ranked" but not because they did not have been asked:

"Singapore does not have a calculated Social Progress Index score or rank. Singapore does not have a calculated score in the Basic Human Needs dimension. Singapore does not have a calculated score in the Foundations of Wellbeing dimension. In the Opportunity Dimension, Singapore is strongest on Personal Freedom and Choice and has the most room to improve on Personal Rights."

To make more context:

  • Switzerland is ranked #3
  • China is ranked #92

No matter how good the data about Switzerland or China is, not providing data or trying to hide because of whatever reason is not showing any progress. As of today, Singapore can be put in the same "basket" with Timor-Leste and Vietnam which also have not provided sufficient data to calculate the SPI.

In school, I was told that there is "presumption of innocence" which also implies in this case. I personally have attended an event in early 2015 where I heared Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan speaking in his role as Minister for Environment and Water Resources, where he said: "We should be an open source society based on innovation, not ideology." now in October 2015 he became Foreign minister and he's meeting many people again, I will see him in around 1 weeks time and will ask him personally why this data is missing, if the data is not available until then anyway :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015[edit]

Fgargano01 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Under "Languages': 'Translators' need to be changed to 'Interpreters'.

Yes check.svg Done Correct, thanks. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2015[edit]

In the Etymology section: many of the nation's symbols (i.e. coat of arms) should be many of the nation's symbols (e.g., its coat of arms)

63.240.73.46 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Talk! 09:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015[edit]

In 2015, Singapore celebrated its Golden jubilee, 50th year of independence, with a year-long series of events branded SG50. In the same year on 11th of September, PAP has achieved a feat of receiving 69.86% of the vote during General Election — second to the 75.3% garnered in 2001. Tsaiy61 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you use: Little red dot, it will be valid also after december 2015, when SG50 ends and then there is no political message required on the page about Singapore. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016[edit]

Please remove 'Caucasians and others' from the list of Ethnic groups in the infobox and replace it with just 'Others', because it would make more sense to have the infobox conform to the 'CMIO' classification system in Singapore. The list of ethnic groups in the infobox should be limited to Chinese, Malays, Indians, with Eurasians and simply 'Others' listed below. There are many more substantial non-CMIO communities in Singapore, like the Arabs and Peranakans, and it would make more sense to group them all under 'Others' instead of exclusively featuring one smaller group on the infobox. Thanks! Tiger7253 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done BushelCandle (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

singapore[edit]

singapore has many different people with their aboriginal histories for the past as they were very not educated during the past times.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016[edit]

Can someone please change the links of the ethnic groups in the infobox to Chinese Singaporeans, Malay Singaporeans and Indian Singaporeans because it makes more sense to redirect to those pages instead of Chinese people, Indian people etc. Specifically, the Chinese and Indian Singaporeans are ethnically different from the majority of Chinese and Indian people, most Chinese in Singapore are Hoklo and most Indians in Singapore are Tamil as opposed to the pan-ethnic term Han Chinese which refers to the many types of Han people that come from various parts of China or the Hindi-speaking majority of India who are ethnically different from Tamils. Both Chinese Singaporeans and Indian Singaporeans also share a distinct culture from China and India respectively. It also makes sense to change the links because the link for "Eurasians" listed below in the infobox directs to Eurasians in Singapore instead of Eurasian (mixed ancestry) which refers to many different Eurasian groups from around the world. Thank you. (121.220.86.116 (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)) 121.220.86.116 (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, BushelCandle (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that BushelCandle (talk · contribs) however I'm sorry because I did not make myself clear could you do this to each of the ethnic groups just like "Eurasian" write the name for example "Chinese Singaporeans|Chinese" so that it just appears as Chinese but when clicked on it, it links to Chinese Singaporeans and you should do the same for "Malay Singaporeans|Malays" → Malays and "Indian Singaporeans|Indians" → Indians. Thank you. (121.220.86.116 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC))
Well of course I could do, but could you explain your thinking on that, please? Isn't it better to signal clearly where the internal link will lead to? BushelCandle (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I thought of that because other pages like Myanmar and Malaysia only say "Chinese" and "Indian" instead of "Malaysian Chinese" or "Burmese Indian". (58.168.208.189 (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC))
Actually, I agree with having 'Chinese Singaporeans, Malay Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans' in the infobox as opposed to a redirect like 'Chinese Singaporeans|Chinese', etc., because that creates a bit of ambiguity. The new edit gets the point across that Singapore's various ethnic groups are distinctly Singaporean. Great suggestion! Tiger7253 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Tiger7253 (talk · contribs), but I thought that saying Chinese, Malay and Indian would be better like they did with Myanmar and Malaysia the links for Chinese and Indian link up to their respective pages on the Chinese and Indian communities in Myanmar and Malaysia. (121.219.134.170 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC))


Image Map[edit]

Hi all,

I am the creator of the image map that can be found in the 'Singaporeans' page, and now on the main article about Singapore under the Demographics section. All information for the map was sourced from the following articles:

- Chinese Singaporeans, Malay Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans, Languages of Singapore, and Culture of Singapore, all of which have well-cited references about the various sub-groups of Singapore's three main ethnic groups.

I would like to hear suggestions from the editors about the image map (eg. if it can be improved or changed in any way). Thanks! Tiger7253 (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the map looks really good and it's good that it's on the right, so people on a desktop computer and a mobile will be able to see it properly. I don't think anything needs to be done to it because it serves its intended purpose which is to inform people of the ethnic origins of Singaporean people. (121.219.134.170 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC))

Hi, I will be reversing some of your good faith edits as follows:

  1. Singapore article is a summary of the nation. It is sufficient that you have already inserted the map with its details in 'Singaporeans'.
  2. Malay, as a national language is retained for historical reasons, explained in the body. Highlighting it in infobox can mislead readers - as a first or dominant language.
  3. This article is mainly about Singapore after its colonial founding and independence, so 'formation' the infobox reflects that, like most other countries' articles. I note that you arguments[1]] to expand similar events in India's infobox was also rejected. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that highlighting "Malay" in the infobox potentially may mislead casual readers that it is the primary or dominant language and have edited accordingly. BushelCandle (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GDP disparity[edit]

I noticed that the GDP listed in the infobox doesn't tally up with the GDP listed under the 'Economy' section.

Infobox: GDP (nominal)     2014[14] estimate •      Total     US$308.051 billion (36th) •      Per capita     US$56,319

Economy section: 2014     S$390.089 (nominal, billion)     S$71,318 (per capita) Which value is the right value then? Tiger7253 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake - I forgot that they're listed in different currencies (USD and SGD). 308 bil USD converts to about 444 bil SGD however so perhaps there's still an error here somewhere? Should the figure be updated or is it permanently pegged to a certain exchange rate now? Tiger7253 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Geography Image Map: Islands[edit]

I created a clickable image map that labels and lists the main outlying islands of Singapore. Do let me know your thoughts.

Some islands also lack their own articles, which are:

9. Keppel Island, Singapore
10. Pulau Renggis
13. Pulau Sebarok
18. Pulau Berkas
19. Pulau Salu
23. Pulau Ular
25. Pulau Bukom Kechil
30. Lazarus Island
33. Pulau Seringat Kechil
35. Pulau Damar Laut
36. Pulau Pergam
38. Pulau Buloh
39. Pulau Seletar
40. Pulau Punggol Barat
41. Pulau Punggol Timor
43. Pulau Ketam, Singapore
46. Batu Belalai (Pulau Damien)

Tiger7253 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not delete an article's recent talk history, unless for vandalism. It's a record of discussions and why edits were done -there's nothing to hide.
Spent more time researching the accuracy of historical references, like temasek and the Chola attack on Singapore that you inserted here and elsewhere. Rather than creating huge distracting maps -someone needs to remove it. 183.90.36.72 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I deleted a topic that was created by me because 1) it was a completely erroneous question asked by me that got no replies, anyway and 2) there were no discussions nor any edits done on the subject matter, so it was a completely dead topic that I felt at liberty to remove because I created it in the first place.
Furthermore, the Chola invasion of Srivijaya was never added by me in the first place. It was added by someone else based on a pre-existing Wikipedia article, and when I discovered said article for the event that has multiple references and an image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_invasion_of_Srivijaya) - all I did was link the article up to the pre-existing text on the Singapore article so as to give it more veracity.
Feel free to disagree with the map, which I think is important because there is nothing on Wikipedia that adequately labels and denotes all of Singapore's main islands in an image - although it would be interesting to hear the opinions of the main editors first. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Chola invasion of Srivijaya article you link to does not even mention Singapore in it. Same thing in 2 other main articles - [Chola dynasty] and [Srivijaya] - nothing about Singapura being invaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiok (talkcontribs) 03:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem is in earlier editors.
The diagram is shouting for attention - to be deleted really. I suggest you look at the main Majapahit and Srivijaya maps which have towns well annotated. Clicking is just a bonus, but its better to have a great overview like those examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiok (talkcontribs) 03:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Its still too big, eye sore, we need to remove it. Or he redo it and put it in geography, but it has to be default size, not overwhelming.
But What I like to know is why he is doing this?? obviously he knows the giant size is totally unsuitable, especially with just a lot of numbers. You have done some good edits elsewhere but to insert this here without regard only spoils your reputation after all that work. As it is, I think we have few Singapore editors who are free to maintain our pages and you can really help in a good way not being exhibitionist. Chilicrab (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that the map uses relative sizing and has been reduced in size, I disagree that it is either too large or should not be included.
I would like to hear arguments for positioning in a different section, though... BushelCandle (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The language here is getting a bit uncalled for. I do not understand what you're trying to insinuate by calling me an 'exhibitionist'. Perhaps you might want to consider looking up the meaning of that derogatory word in the dictionary, because you would find out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the honest edits I have been making. I made a mistake by making the image a bit too large, but it has now been resized, so I don't see what the problem is.
As to 'why I'm doing this', most country articles have clickable maps that delineate the various provinces/states/subdivisions, so all I did was bring Singapore's article up to scratch with that of USA, Canada, etc. by creating a map that lists all of our major islands. You seem to be suggesting that my edits are pointless, but articles will always change and will never remain static. In my opinion, the Geography section had a gaping hole in the article that needed to be filled in. The Geography section focuses on the main island for the most part but it is now more balanced after my edit. If you have an issue with it, you could always choose to discuss the irrelevancy of it and suggest its removal instead of resorting to namecalling and calling people exhibitionists because it is stated at the very top of this talk page that it won't be tolerated. Tiger7253 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Exhibitionistic is not derogatory, just describing your tendency to post oversize diagrams here, and more than once - that readers cannot avoid starring at, even if no one wants to click on it. As for other definitions, but I did not mean exposure.
You said you made a mistake posting at the giant size - [[2]], but I see you continued adding updates for 2 more hours at that time - hard to say you did not notice it right?  I had to right scroll - off the monitor to see the whole image.
You also did it the first time at Singaporeans [[3]] - large map that paused on downloading,and mobile 4G.
At Singaporeans, you reverted an editor who deleted your oversized map, explaining "Info for this map was sourced from the following: Chinese S'poreans, Indian S'poreans, Malay S'poreans, Languages of S'pore, and is accurate."  How do you know all those 4 source articles are accurate - did you check for citations for every data point you used from those articles?  If not, the possibility of perpetuating errors is high, like your links to Chola invaded Singapore -which had no mention of such invasion. Chilicrab (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"Hard to say you did not notice it" "but I see you continued adding updates" This makes no sense whatsoever. It appears that you completely misconstrued my message. I am relatively new to uploading diagrams to Wikipedia and am completely unaware of the sizing guidelines. I only became aware of it after it was recently pointed out to me, and had absolutely no idea that there was something wrong with the size of my diagram, but by all means, feel free to assume that I posted an enormous diagram because I had an agenda to 'distract people'. You are not giving me the benefit of the doubt here.
Furthermore, I am not responsible for the Chola part as it was never added by me in the first place, so it should be taken up with the editor who decided to add it. The entire reason why I linked the text to the 'Chola invasion of Srivijaya' article was because I found the entire premise of it dubious in the first place, so I decided to link it up in order to give it a semblance of credibility. As for all the references and links, they were pre-existing links that were added by the editor who wrote the entire thing in the first place. I did not introduce anything new here at all. I merely edited on top of whatever already existed in the article.
Lastly, about the Singaporeans map, there are multiple references on the articles I mentioned that link to official government statistics files/census sites. One of them --> (http://www.howardscott.net/4/Swatow_A_Colonial_Heritage/Files/Documentation/Lee%20Eu%20Fah.pdf). I therefore created the map based on the various dialect/linguistic groups that exist in Singapore with full backing from well-cited and reputable sources. Tiger7253 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to personally thank you, [User:Tiger7253|Tiger7253]] - both for taking the time, effort and care to create your clickable map and also for carefully responding to criticism.
I also think you are right to comment on the tone of some of the comments. It can be quite difficult to judge the 'tone' of comments correctly when you can not hear a tone of voice or see a friendly wink, but all users should remember that this discussion page is for collaborating to improve the article on Singapore and not for amateur psychoanalysis of the characters or motivation of editors. Assuming good faith is one of the pillars of our project that makes collegiate co-operation more likely.
Descending from the pulpit, may I point out to all our readers that, if large images bother you, if you create an account and then log-on, you are able to set the base width for display of thumbnails as 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 220px, 250px, 300px or as large as 400px in your 'Preferences'. (See Help:Preferences#Files). You can change these settings as often as you like. BushelCandle (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's why we only have past history to judge each other. So as you tried to remove that history here earlier, plus uploading at a huge size, I can only think the worst. 
Given your tone, I will do the same. But unfortunately, it does not change the opinion. You mentioned US, canada as examples, so lets check -
United States article has no clickable maps, but they have many colorful and appealing normal maps. All at default, none oversized. 
Canada has one clickable, but its comprehensive - state names, city names, colored, and legend. So no one needs to click anything if they just want the forest view. Surely, you are not comparing yours with this? Side-by-side, ours looks dull and will people will have a bad impression. If you can create something similar to Canada, its justified. But are you keen to spent time doing that?
I registered to just to remove your diagram, so 5 days now, I can do that. But if you are keen to work on it, go ahead. Meantime we put it in geography page at default size. And unless you want to do it all, a wider community may help unprotected. Others may be better at creating diagram. If its great, we bring it bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.36.47 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)