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.
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
Checklist icon
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Photomontage[edit]

@Lemongirl942, can you paste a link to the WP policy/guide that disallow this? I have a problem finding it. The template follows Hong Kong's. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We do stuff by consensus here. Country article generally do not have a photomontage. There are many issues with it such as quality of images, issues of fair representation and display on small screen devices. So an explicit consensus is required before implementing it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"explicit consensus is required before implementing it" - This sounds like some policy/guide, so is there a link to "explicit concensus?". Wrigleygum (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS. Also see WP:WIKILAWYERING. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see what a montage of a collection of tourist attractions in Singapore adds to the article, and it is unconventional to include it in the lead in country articles (where maps and the like are typically used to orient readers). Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
On WP guide on images, it only mentions concensus for selection of images, not that images or a montage cannot be inserted by anyone, especially if no one else is taking any initiative.Wrigleygum (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia article, and images should be included where they enhance reader understanding and do not clutter up the page. See also WP:IG. CMD (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
What about Hong Kong?-they are using the country infobox. and I've seen montages in the body of country articles, so we just move it further down? Wrigleygum (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you discuss that on the Hong Kong page. But over here a montage doesn't really add anything encyclopaedic. It is also problematic for small screen devices which is one of the reasons we tend to use montages judiciously. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wrigleygum, The reason google picks up and verbatim shows Wikipedia content is because it is moderated and we strive for high-quality encyclopaedic content. It is very tedious when all your replies are "but someone else is doing the same" . A lot of experienced editors are patiently discussing specific points. Wikipedia is not a forum to make Singapore look good in Search results. Vinay84 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
We realise our aim is not to make Singapore appear as good as we can or put everything we find in other articles into this one, but instead is to create a high-quality encyclopaedia article, as described in our Wikipedia:Assessment scale. CMD (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This is illogical when every other City article has photo montages. Even the devastated Aleppo has a good montage. -Sgpedian 203.78.15.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Note that Lemongirl942 says "We do stuff by consensus here".
As for "many issues with it such as quality of images, issues of fair representation and display on small screen devices." - this would contradict every place article that has photo montages. But not a problem if enclosed in an infobox. Warpslider (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Warpslider, it is very clear you don't have enough experience editing Wikipedia. You attitude and pointy actions are not welcome. Consider this a warning. If you continue to do it, you are pushing yourself towards a block. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Lemongirl92, he made a good point as most city articles simply have them in the infobox template and you have avoided replying to it so far. There is no need to warn or comment about other editors when your own actions and comments list below seems to be much worse, sounding like intimidation and there are Wikipedia against that. So please just explain the technical issues so it can be put up. =203.78.15.149 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Huh? This is a country article. We simply do not have photomontages for these as it doesn't add anything encyclopaedic. This is precisely why I said that Warpslider doesn't have enough experience. They simply do not understand how consensus works and that we hold stuff to academic standards here. One of their actions was pointy as well, which is grounds for blocking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Percentage of millionaires[edit]

Hi! I'm new to the wikipedia community so forgive me if this isn't the appropriate place for my post. I wanted to suggest an edit to the following sentence in the Singapore article:

"Singapore has the world's highest percentage of millionaires, with one out of every six households having at least one million US dollars in disposable wealth. This excludes property, businesses, and luxury goods, which if included would increase the number of millionaires, especially as property in Singapore is among the world's most expensive"

I was speaking to my godmother, who lives in Singapore and we were quite astounded by this statistic. I went back to the original article, which reports that OF SINGAPOREANS WHO OWN HOUSES (which is a rather small percentage of the populations), one in six are millionaires. I wanted to suggest changing the wording to reflect this, as written it seems as though 1 out of every 6 households in general has >1 million dollars!Aaluko (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting, however you haven't given the source of your statement. Is it from a reliable source? Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


1 in 6 are millionaires in singapore what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.61.127 (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

POV and WP:UNDUE in lead[edit]

The RFC was recently closed and since then the lead contains a bunch of puffery and boosterism. I am adding the tag per the RFC as it needs a rewrite. Please do not remove the tag without discussion (it needs a consensus for removal). I would appreciate if others can help out to trim the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we go by steps and see what is undue and what is not --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Step 1[edit]

Diff.

Firsly I don't think there's anything called "Nation's core principles". It's unsourced as well. And anyway, this isn't even relevant for the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: As a Singaporean, I agree. I think it's quite embarrassing how the lead text comes off as an advertisement bragging about admirable aspects about Singapore, as opposed to merely documenting Singapore from a neutral standpoint. I mean, I am proud of my country, but that would be better suited for a tourist guide, not an encyclopaedia.
I would do away with phrases like "the Garden City, the Red Dot" in the lead sentence (absolutely unnecessary) and either shift them somewhere else in the article or rid the article entirely of it. In the second paragraph, the "most technology ready" thing also needs to go. So does - "top international meetings city (UIA)", "best investment potential", best blah blah this, best blah blah that, it's cringeworthy and doesn't belong here. Everything else seems fine, but I reckon it could still do with a bit more cleaning up. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm a local too. Of the rankings, I agree with you the one that sounds promotional is 'best investment potential', I am partial about 'international meetings city', whereas 'technology ready' is not quite obvious but is an important IT ranking. Actually any rank can sound like bragging really but it's an achievement like an olympic medal and most major cities have it too. The nicknames should stay as it's written up in the media on a regular even daily basis and readers may wonder why our country is known by that. As for core principles, a google search turns up many hits on the terms but they seems not to be official.Shiok (talk)
Has fallen off the first place for "Easiest Place to Do Business" (http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings), so I'm removing that from the article. Mount2010 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As this process seems to have stalled, I've WP:BOLDly removed most of the business rankings, replacing them with succinct text on what their messages are where this wasn't already in place. I think that this reflects the outcomes of the RfC and the above discussion. I've also removed a reference to Singapore being a permanent observer country to the Arctic Council as it didn't seem important enough to mention in the lead - as the Council's article notes, this status doesn't give Singapore any formal say in the group. Singapore is a more significant member of many other organisations not mentioned here, not to mention being a de-facto permanent guest member of the G20. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if uninvolved editors would chime in after the tags placed at the front. The previous Rfc was also closed a day after I updated Singapore's lead: Specific issues denying more editors the opportunity to read and post comments so the closing summary may not be representative anyway.
- [Singapore's lead: Specific issues
- [Comparison Examples:]
Please comment on individual rankings and alternatives, other specific issues here, including the following additions: Wrigleygum (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Arctic Council
  • classified as being "partly free" by Freedom House
This is not inserted in any other country article, as far as I know.
  • "Easiest place to do business" (World Bank's flagship report)
  • most "Tech-ready" nation (WEF) - Global IT Report
  • top Meetings City (UIA) - A component of M.I.C.E., indicative of business hub vibrancy
  • city with "best investment potential" (BERI) - 18 consecutive years
  • 2nd-most competitive country (WEF) - a flagship report
I suggested an addition or alternative earlier of 'OECD Global School ranking', perhaps in place of 'International Meetings City'.Warpslider (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind. I presented all my reasons above, copied from "Specific issues" and would have been open to discuss. There were comments about the term "Tech-Ready", a description from WEF itself and I can't think off a better one except a wordy, "1st-Global Information Technology Report"Wrigleygum (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Can I suggest removing 'best investment potential' as well? -sounds a bit promotional. Shiok (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind, just consensus on which ones gives an overall better representation of nation. Economic ranks first because Singapore is best known for that. But certainly social ones like education, health are also well-known. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I just recall London has a similar entry. Have a look at [London] comparisons section - "world's leading investment destination". Wrigleygum (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Core principles - meritocracy, secularism and multiracialism[1][2]
(NEW)Proposed replacement of first sentence
"Singapore promotes multiculturalism and multireligious harmony through a range of official policies"
This does avoid previous concerns. Would it be too long to mention that some stern policies are meant to curb hate speech, discrimination etc? Shiok (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably, you can always add to the body first. Good point -address concerns on certain limits on civil liberties. Wrigleygum (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
(Rest of Para-5 sentences)
It is noted for its effective, pragmatic and incorrupt governance and civil service, which together with its rapid development policies, is widely cited as the "Singapore model".[3][4][5] Gallup polls shows 84% of its residents expressed confidence in the national government, and 85% in its judicial systems—one of the highest ratings recorded.[6] Singapore has significant influence on global affairs relative to its size, leading some analysts to classify it as a middle power. It is ranked as Asia's most influential city and 4th in the world by Forbes.[7][8] Wrigleygum (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Managing social, cultural and religious pluralism and diversity - the Singapore experience". Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 22 June 2010. 
  2. ^ Hussin Mutalib (2012). Being Ethnic Minority and Muslim in a Global City-state. Routledge. pp. 138 ff. ISBN 978-1-138-84453-7. 
  3. ^ "Lee Kuan Yew's Legacy: The Singapore Model of Clean Governance". Huffington Post. 22 May 2015. Singapore is widely considered as a role model for developing countries yearning to establish more prosperous societies 
  4. ^ "The Singapore Solution". National Geographic. January 2010. Lee masterminded the celebrated "Singapore Model" converting a country.. with no natural resources and a fractured mix of ethnicities, into "Singapore, Inc".. The model—a unique mix of economic empowerment and tightly controlled personal liberties—has inspired imitators in China, Russia, and eastern Europe 
  5. ^ "Days of Reflection for the Man Who Defined Singapore". The New York Times. 10 September 2010. 
  6. ^ "Lee Kuan Yew's Lasting Legacy: A Good Life in Singapore". Gallup. 16 March 2016. 
  7. ^ "London the most influential city in the world according to Forbes". Telegraph. 18 August 2014. 
  8. ^ "Size Doesn't Matter for Asia's Influential Cities". The Diplomat. 20 August 2014. ..International business: Singapore places first among global cities in our ranking of foreign direct investment, with a five-year average of 359 greenfield transactions 
The statement is from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - reference 1 above. If you are researching on this, keep in mind "Core principles" may be stated in a number of ways, like 'core/fundamental/guiding - principles/values/pillars' and similar. Meritocracy may be described as a policy as well as a principle in civil service and GLCs. Racial and religious social harmony (secularism) is heavily emphasised in social and political policies and mentioned on a regular basis at every other national and community events, including the current Elected Presidency debate. Multiracialism Secularism and Equality is enshrined in our Singapore National Pledge and the reason for the creation of Singapore in the first place. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
We require reliable secondary and third party sources. Your first source cannot be used here. The second source doesn't say anywhere that the "core principles of Singapore" are "meritocracy, secularism and multiracialism". Those are policies of the government and the ruling party - not principles of the nation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Lemongirl942, even though I agree the "core principles" - as stated - may not be official, the founding constitution and pledge are written by the same founding party which has not changed. I wonder if you have a different viewpoint where a nation's principles would be stated. I do think the other content should not be removed as you only doubt the "core principles" and Nick-D only justified removing the Arctic Council. So the other remaining content is the purpose of this section you started to discuss. I have in mind and agree with the very first RFC comment above by A D Monroe who stated: "Singapore is a very non-typical country, so some such info on how it's viewed is useful" and that trimmings need to specified and discussed. Shiok (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Reverting Bold - she still need to abide by the rules of WP:Consensus with other interested parties here. Warpslider (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both.Wrigleygum (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
With your experience, you must have used this countless times: WP:Consensus - "Decision making involves an effort to incorporate all editors legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Warpslider (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, a pointy action. All I'm going to say is multiple editors have been blocked for actions like the one you did. It's very obvious you are an SPA and you don't have enough experience to understand how Wikipedia works. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Nick-D Thank you. I largely agree with the changes. I am specifically warning Wrigleygum not to POV push here. If Wrigleygum continues to do this, I will push for a block or PBAN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't deserve this agressive tone. Mostly I've been open to valid additions and edits and undid mainly the Bolds because there is no discussion whatsoever. I have not reverted "core principles" nor "partly-free" and left it alone for consensus. Repeating "POV pushing" does not make my discussions so. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty clear you are an SPA here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Step 2 (Older versions)[edit]

I actually had a look at a previous version of the lead. It reads much better and summarises the information well. Except for a sentence in the fourth paragraph, it is much better written than the present version. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not better, just different and missing much of the current information. There is one line I'm interested in - "the country promotes multiculturalism through a range of official policies". If you are bothered with "core values", we could use this - "the country promotes multiculturalism and multireligious harmony through a range of official policies"? Wrigleygum (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
That earlier version also looks good to me, and I agree that the wording is superior. Wrigleygum, I have no intention at all to engage with your awful edit warring. Edit warring against the results of an RfC is terrible conduct, and appears to be the main purpose of your recent editing [1]. As this is totally blockable conduct, there's no requirement for anyone to engage with you: I would suggest that you drop the stick and move on before you are blocked. I'd also widen this to the two other accounts which have suddenly come out of the woodwork and are pretending that the RfC above doesn't exist - this really is awful conduct, and will likely lead to blocks. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Nick-D, you have left your message on the wrong editor's page. That revert is not by me although I agree with the principle of his revert and appreciate the support. I am sure you have used the same reasoning of WP:consensus against many other editors in your long experience. No one wants to edit-war, least of all me spending more time on this..but you have continually declined to discuss on this talk page first before posting your Bold edits. So you are not showing WP:consensus building in good faith. The reasoning I gave for the statistical format of rankings used by most major cities like NYC, London, Tokyo and other specific issues are completely ignored. I think Wikipedia would frown on your conduct if I may say so in turn. I doubt that you actually take the time to read back on what was posted by me weeks ago and even the points today else you would not to writing what you just did. One thing I learn today from your posting - "not to mention being a de-facto permanent guest member of the G20" is new to me so appreciate the info. If you could, do comment on other issues I posted and the proposed rankings change.Wrigleygum (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually you did in fact revert me. Why pretend otherwise? Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Not pretending. The most recent ones you likely referred to are not mine. The only one I did was 18 hrs ago just past midnight here.Wrigleygum (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Further Removal[edit]

@Lemongirl942: Can you take a look at this:

Singapore is a global commerce, finance and transport hub. Its standings include: the most "technology-ready" nation (WEF), top International-meetings city (UIA), city with "best investment potential" (BERI), 2nd-most competitive country, 3rd-largest foreign exchange market, 3rd-largest financial centre, 3rd-largest oil refining and trading centre; and the second busiest container port. The country has also been identified as a tax haven. link

This looks like a bit WP:NPOV. Should we clean it up? NgYShung huh? 05:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

NgYShung, I've asked you a question of interest on your Talk page (WP:RFC says to discuss with closer first if we disagree with the conclusion). Not only have you ignored my post on your page, so now you're carrying a flag, entrenching your opinion and instigating others? Do you know of any other RFC closer (admin or non-admin) doing what you are currently up to, after 'helping' to close the RFC? Wrigleygum (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
so now you're carrying a flag, entrenching your opinion and instigating others Woah, that's a pretty bad accusation. Wrigleygum, I suggest you drop the stick and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Let him speak, unless he's installed you as spokesman. Drop "drop the stick" cliches - you've used them countless times.. getting worn. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

wrong home ownership figures[edit]

90% of citizens do not own their homes and property, especially public housing . U are wrong here. They are on lease to citizens. stop this please. This is misleading on many parts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylegamer (talkcontribs) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed you have recently edited the article to reflect your personal beliefs, I presume. Please remember, this is Wikipedia. It seems that this is your second time vandalising this article, as reading from your talk page. Gs97 (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
We go by verifiability. The 90% home ownership rate is well cited.[1] --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Singapore marks 50 years since independence". BBC News. 9 August 2015. 
Well, the 90% home ownership rate is correct except that it means 90% of the homes are occupied by owners instead of 90% citizens owning their own homes. Which makes this a misguided barometer of measuring a country's success.Mohann Jasturba (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WHAT DO U MEAN BY VANDALISING THE ATICLE? .. BBC citation is not valid AND ITS NOT A STATISTICAL ARTICLE . Please cite from official sources . WHAT DO U MEAN BY MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS? i THINK U HAVE YR OWN POLITICAL AGENDA IN REVERTING BACK THE EDITS HERE IS AN ARTICLE WHICH SAYS THIS: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/different-kinds-of-leases/3036526.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylegamer (talkcontribs) 10:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Section arrangement[edit]

Chipmunkdavis, is there a link to 'standard template'? Who decides and why would not all the countries follow them? I think most of them have History and Geography first Shiok (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a template for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC - Inclusion of sentence about Gallup poll[edit]

The consensus of this RFC is to remove the "Gallup poll" sentence. Gallup poll does not seems like a reliable source because public opinions are mostly wide-based and cannot be decide truly. Though it may be added at the body of the text (maybe held another RfC for this, but this RfC is focused on the article's lead), polls do not suit for lead section as it may be overly-detailed and have undue weight, especially when it sounds peacock-ly, and also the reference is a primary source. By the way the users who polled for "keep" do not have the equivalent or valid reasons to support it. (non-admin closure) NgYShung huh? 09:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This RfC is about the lead of this article as of this version. A previous RFC was closed with broad consensus to trim the lead. Continuing the work, this RFC specifically looks at this sentence in the lead

Gallup polls shows 84% of its residents expressed confidence in the national government, and 85% in its judicial systems—one of the highest ratings recorded.

Considering the relevant policies WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT and other country articles such as Australia (which is an FA), should the above sentence be included in the lead? Please indicate your choice in the "Survey" section and bold your choices Keep and Remove. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Remove This doesn't belong in the lead. It is sourced to a primary source and more importantly is UNDUE for the lead. It doesn't add any encyclopaedic value and is essentially random trivia. It is unfortunate that despite a previous RFC closing with consensus to trim the lead, a bunch of agenda-driven SPAs are trying to status-quo stonewall any changes in the article. Hence, I have no option but to launch another RFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Note to closing admin I am seeing quite a lot of SPA activity on this thread. 2 IPs who have hardly ever edited, have come along to drive to vote a "keep". There is also a discussion about 3 SPA accounts who are trying to stonewall changes and adding a bunch of puffery. Please also see this thread at ANI for more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: The "Note" by the SPA below should probably convince you. The SPAs are essentially trying to game the system by using multiple votes. WP:NOTUNANIMITY applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Note RFC Proposer is micro-managing and expressing irrelevent comments. 2 IPs noted, but WP:RFC seem to expressly encourage them - All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. - Wrigleygum (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Keeps and Oppose appear even and I replied to some of the latter without response yet. The rest of the Opposers (4-5) are mainly single-sentence votes, or saying 'undue' without elaboration, or speculating about the source without evidence. Wrigleygum (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove Completely unnecessary, and too detailed for the lead. The preceding sentence starting that "It is noted for its effective, pragmatic and incorrupt governance and civil service, which together with its rapid development policies, is widely cited as the "Singapore model"." covers this topic in sufficient detail, making this sentence unnecessary WP:PEACOCK-style material for the lead. It seems OK to mention this in the body of the article, but I note also that source rovides no evidence to support its claim that this is "one of the highest ratings recorded" as it only provides data for Singapore. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It's in the opinion piece and data I just updated. See below Wrigleygum (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove from the lead, but keep in the body of the article. Per WP:Lead the lead is a summary of the most important contents. I think the sentence is important for the body, but not the lead.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
CuriousMind01, most content in the body will not be read at all, which is why -for lack of time, my focus has been on the lead. I feel it is important enough for people to know that most are satisfied, if not happy here. Hope you have time to read - ["Specific Issues"] above. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that it may be an important point, but if every important point -- and the full detail behind every important point -- appears in the lead, then we would move the entire article into the lead ;) Indeed, at its current length, most people won't read the whole lead. I think we can make the point without a full sentence -- and the article will be stronger as a result. Chris vLS (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I anticipated the length concern, so it is the first item dealt with in ["Article length", specific issues] above. The word-count is around the average of the major global cities. Trust in government and institutions is probably the most important national issue in most countries today and the only statisic in the lead (that is non-economic) - so not just another detail:) Wrigleygum (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Trust in government and institutions is probably the most important national issue in most countries today Citation needed for this. We go by weight and weight doesn't necessarily mean importance. The basic problem is this is undue for the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I said "probably" because some researchers may have other things in mind. So far, have not found one that says Trust is of "low importance". But you can do some work and list other metrics which you feel are more important. Be glad to listen. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I also think, in an informal OR way that one should take into account how freely Singaporeans would criticize the government to a gallup pollster. 1980s national TV (government) jingle in S'pore I still remember: "Good, better, best. Never let it rest. For productivity, make your better best." It is not that I think the Singaporean trust in a government that has done them well is not noteworthy. I just do not think this should be in the lead (it's a poll, we don't have the exact question or any info on the sampling, etc.), though I see no reason for it not to be mentioned anecdotally in the body. SashiRolls (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove I agree, remove entirely, it's not even remotely accurate for the real world, Gallup is not a legitimate source for any poll, they "find" what ever the people who pay them to perform the "poll" want them to find. If there were legitimate references and citations showing such percentages backed by testable news articles that are legitimate, then the text could be retrained using those citations, however Gallup is notorious pay-for-findings. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Damotclese, your opinion cannot be considered as it is speculation. But you must have formed the idea reading it somewhere. Perhaps you can post some references about Gallup or polling companies in general that state the same? Afaik, Gallup is one of the oldest survey companies and widely quoted daily.Wrigleygum (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
No, it is a primary source and undue for the lead. By your logic I could quote another random Gallup poll which says Singapore the ‘least positive’ country in the world and add it to the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
You're on a tangent. He is speculating Gallup is not a legitimate source and I asked for citations on that. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice try avoiding the question. Do you think gallup polls deserve a mention. If yes, we could also mention Singaporeans are productive, highly disciplined citizens who are not enjoying their lives much --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We can debate anything. In this reply, you are obscuring my reply to him - I was asking for info on his speculation about Gallup being unreliable (not about being a Primary source). These comments cannot be considered if there is nothing to prove the speculation. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - The line of statistic describes the Trust level of its citizens, which is different from the preceding line - "It is noted for its effective, pragmatic and incorrupt governance and civil service" - usually views of editors, analysts and think tanks. It is concise and imparts useful information for a more controlled democracy like Singapore.Wrigleygum (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If you have the time. There are thousands of metrics. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove the statistic, but keep the idea. The lead can summarize a point without reiterating the evidence behind it, as that evidence should appear in the article itself. Looking at the second and third paragraphs of the Australia lead, for example, several points are made -- and the citation given -- without going into specific statistics. Chris vLS (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a major issue for most countries and where Singapore has consistently done well. I found some interesting links to research and talks, like this clip (rather than long reads) :
The collapse of trust in government: Will democracy survive? -- [Youtube. Streamed live on May 19, 2016]
70% of national populations surveyed do not trust their governments. Problems such as corruption flourish, which further weakens the fabric of democracy. How can government leaders work to build trust, integrity, and values in government?
- Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford
Statistics are always useful to show its significance. Please keep it. Shiok (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a major issue for most countries and where Singapore has consistently done well Umm, it's not our job to highlight stuff where Singapore has done well. Also your citation is not a reliable source, so the issue about being WP:UNDUE remains. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
No editor has a job in wikipedia.org except the salaried ones. It's your prerogative to refute what others posts. To claim WP:Undue in this RFC, you will need to evidence that Trust in Government/Institutions is not important enough in governance and politics. Wrigleygum (talk)
  • Remove This piece of information might be warranted in the body of the article but it seems quite undue in the lead of the article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove: The lead should only sum up the general gist of the article and we need to keep WP:LEAD in mind. (summoned by bot). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on RFC Responses. Some of the comments, like the preceeding ones by Bmbaker88 and Proc27 make no meaningful points, simply saying 'undue' in lead and 'keep WP:Lead in mind' with no comments on the content itself. Please note that for Consensus, you need to post your arguments for or against the substance of the sentence in question. WP:RFC guidelines - The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments... Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Warpslider (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Most experience editors understand that and they are perfectly good policy based reasons. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I spent some time listening to the 'Collapse of Trust in Government' video link by Shiok. It is a panel discussion at a conference on Challenges in Government. As an example of countries with high Trust by citizens, Singapore was the first country mentioned by the panel and a number of times in the discussion. This is a clear endorsement for the country and there was certainly no Singaporeans on the panel or audience. It is one of the more notable datum for readers to know about the country and thus due in the lead. Warpslider (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not a reliable source. I can point a bunch of random discussions about Singapore and freedom of press. Also stuff like "This is a clear endorsement for the country" is not a valid reason per WP:NOTADVOCATE. Our aim here is not to make Singapore look good or bad, but to simply add encyclopaedic information with due weight. All of this is undue in the lead, particularly sourced to a primary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You do need to hold off repeating terms like "encyclopedic, undue" without elaboration, POV. As for primary source, read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD - "Primary" does not mean "bad"...Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Uh, that thing you are citing is an ESSAY. WP:SECONDARY is part of a policy. We determine due or undue weight based on the prevalence in reliable sources. As such, something which is only reported in a random Gallup Poll, sourced to a primary source, is undue here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In such cases, we can refer to 3rd party opinion.. Here, I suspect it will go around in circles.
  • Remove Given the source, is WP:UNDUE in the lede.OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep yes this should be highlighted to explain that Singapore is not typical in the region, Asean and Asia especially. Just in the last few days, world news are reporting many deeply divided countries, like SKorea, US, HK, and many more if we widen the time frame to a few months. It is easy for nations in close proximity to be lumped together otherwise.=203.78.15.149 (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE. Seriously, "yes this should be highlighted to explain that Singapore is not typical in the region, Asean and Asia especially"? We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not advocate for Singapore. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Talk page debates and chatter on news of the day are just that. The sentence proper does not advocate anything. It just says - Trust of the government is high, with the source figures to back it up. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove WP:UNDUE for the lead. I remember enjoying the years I spent in Singapore, still, Wikipedia is meant to be WP:NPOV, and the confidence in the government of a country at a given time t is probably not relevant enough to lead an encyclopedia article on the country and its place in history. This would need to be connected to a specific government in a politics section, I would have thought. SashiRolls (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, but in this non-typical nation, the ruling party has been in power since independence (51 years) and had consistent popular mandate in electoral votes to govern, which "Trust in Government" plays a big part. Hope you will return again. Wrigleygum (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given the multiple RS on the question, Singapore's long history on tax haven lists should be mentioned in the lead.SashiRolls (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove WP:UNDUE for the lead, especially given the source. Within the body it is possible to properly attribute the claim.Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading about OECD education performance below, I would comment that Gallup statistics are also used by OECD. People.. just search on the keywords and you get some of the reports and charts that provide measures of governance of the countries in the grouping. Gallup data is accessible behind a pay-wall by subscription. In this instance, Singapore's figures of 84% Trust are revealed in the opinion piece by Gallup itself owing to Lee's death - there is nothing better than to get it from the primary source itself. If I find anything else later I will provide it here. ..203.78.15.149 (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • even if it were in the opinion piece on Lee Kwan Yew -- which it isn't (there is no mention of 84% of Singaporeans trusting the gvt at a given time t in that article) -- I'm not sure that would be a crucial argument concerning whether a gallup poll should go in the lead or not.SashiRolls (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Eighty-four percent of people in Singapore indicate that they have confidence in the national government, one of the highest ratings in the world, and 85% express confidence in judicial systems and courts. - Sashirolls, this is the relevant Gallup text. Are you saying the article is not an opinion piece? - I'm a bit confused. Time t would be the point in time the writer wrote the piece. As far as I know, Gallup World Polls is a continuous one. We could add "As of 2014" if that is what you meant. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
        • How embarrassing! Sorry. I want to back out of this discussion for the time being, seeing as I'm making basic mistakes. Yes, I think that the date should be mentioned though. And ideally the date of the data being referenced by the opinion writer we source to in the body of the article.SashiRolls (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
          • No problem. Its really rare to see an apology in this Talk page! thanks. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi, I do have some notes to add here which include OECD, and been trying to read more to organise it. I hope you can consider registering an account to contribute, need more of that thanks. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @203.78.15.149:We do not use primary sources directly. We specifically require secondary third party sources to report stuff based on these primary sources. And a random Gallup poll for one particular year (sourced to a primary source) is undue weight. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD - "Primary" does not mean "bad"...Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That's an essay. The policy is at WP:SECONDARY. The long standing consensus has been that primary sources are useful for verifiability and not for notability/weight. The problem here is WP:UNDUE which has not been addressed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Read WP:PRIMARY again. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.. "84% Trust" - quoting a statement of fact. Wrigleygum (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, {{Re|203.78.15.149} my sincere apologies! I have missed that sentence both times I've fact-checked this article because I was scanning for the number 84 I guess. Striking my mistake above.SashiRolls (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This is part of the survey discussions. You should not be moving it elsewhere. Copying relevant parts back. Shiok (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The section below is for threaded discussion such as this. But anyway, I have moved it here now. Please do not selectively copy like you did just now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks quarrelsome here I am surprised..and why should we not be able to distance ourselves from our neighbors who are having protests every week from racism (Indonesia) to corruption (Malaysia) to equality issues. I mean we wish them well and to solve their problems soon but not everyone know enough about the region. Racial or social harmony in Singapore should be in the lead especially. Local hawker food is mentioned in any tourist write up but not here. Anyway trust in the country is a good substitute for some of these ideas and the high trust actually does match with the electoral votes where the present government won 70% last year. Many of us including myself want more opposition in parliament, but in the end we still trust them. Some of these opposers must be in denial of the government's many achievements but certainly a vocal minority if they are residents, so if Gallup figures are right these would be just around 15% of us.. Take care, be fair. 202.156.242.241 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
202.156.242.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. Further to my comments above, the following are relevant background to justify inclusion of Trust in Government topic and statistic in the lead:
  1. Gallup World Polls data is used by OECD for country studies in the grouping.
  2. Confidence in Institutions: Definition and measurement
Data on confidence in institutions is taken from the Gallup World Poll, which is conducted in more than 150 countries around the world, and based on a common questionnaire, as translated into the predominant languages of each country
3. Why does Trust in Government matter?
Trust in government has been identified as one of the most important foundations upon which the legitimacy and sustainability of political systems are built. Trust is essential for social cohesion and well-being as it affects governments’ ability to govern and enables them to act without having to resort to coercion.
4. Methodology - Gallup Worldwide Research - Dates collected in all countries
- Gallup World Polls for Singapore 2014 (May-27—Aug-6): 1,000 interviews, Face-to-Face
5. A note on comparative score:
Switzerland has the highest OECD group score of 80% (in 2015).
relevant text - "On behalf of the OECD, Gallup World Poll led a survey among 1,000 Swiss citizens last year. Almost 80% of them said they trusted their government. This is the highest rate among all the 34 OECD countries." -Wrigleygum (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding these references! Worried about dates as I am I opened the file to find it was, as you had said, an annual poll, but that "Some condominiums were excluded due to restricted access. This exclusion represents no more than 12% of the population" That -- in itself -- is somewhat worrying, isn't it? (Not sure exactly what that means, but that has been a remark from 2005 to 2015.) I also notice that Tamil was not one of the survey languages. Am assuming Chinese is official Mandarin? All this talk is making me want to return. Wikipedia isn't good for the wallet. Humming, "Why Worry?" ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove. Clearly WP:UNDUE in the lead and looks like special pleading or boosterism. -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
You're right it does seem like pressing it and for all the effort, only depends on a single Admin's pov. I was reminded on talk that this may close shortly so just putting whatever I found out there. Is there particular 'unfavourable evidence' you think I am ignoring? Wrigleygum (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Wider discussion (if required)[edit]

Is an RfC the best way to deal with the lead sentence by sentence? I don't think it is. Specifics should be disucssed here first. It's less work for everyone involved, and may be quicker. CMD (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any other way. The combination of POV pushing, status quo stonewalling, refusal to understand the consensus, pointy editing and meatpuppetry by the SPAs is way too much. I don't want to expend my energy here. I actually prefer how the article is right now - a puffed up lead but with a nice tag warning that the lead is not neutral. Any reader will read and definitely realise that the lead is biased. So the effect of making Singapore look good is actually not going to work. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Lemongirl942, none of what you said above to 'sow the seeds of doubt' applies. Especially for WP:Consensus, you have been contradictory and bending it to suit your purpose. I think the few contributors here has actually been accommodating, or maybe intimidated. You have been talking about your experience over other editors, maybe too much it makes one feel invincible, and occasionally you should re-read Wiki principles: [Experience] - "No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers"
Also, what you said recently in talk and edit summaries - "Stop your POV pushing, or I will make sure you get blocked", "Consider this a warning..you are pushing yourself towards a block" (I only checked for last few days) sounds exactly like the examples quoted at WP:THREATEN - "On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether. Warpslider (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Your behaviour was pointy and I just warned you. Other editors have been blocked for pointy editing and you are pushing yourself towards it. Also, if a bunch of SPAs leave Wikipedia, it will make everyone's life a lot easier. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
More of the same by Lemongirl942:
["Continue edit warring and I will report you"]
["If you remove these again, I will report you"]
["PLEASE STOP YOUR DISRUPTIVE EDITING OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED"]
["Don't remove it. Continuing to do so will result in you being blocked"]
["NO please stop, unless you want to be blocked"]
["PLEASE STOP or you will be blocked"]
Some awful conduct only from edit summaries in September. Talk pages not checked yet.Warpslider (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I am removing it in accordance with the template you mentioned - as it did not attract any new uninvolved editors for the whole month, only 2 existing ones on the first day. "When to remove - You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:.. 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."
Arguing over POV tags, rather than substantive issues is super-lame. William Avery (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2016 (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.

Shifting some parts of lead paragraph to other sections[edit]

@Lemongirl942: I've been thinking of shifting the "Lion City, Garden City and Red Dot" part in the lead sentence to the Etymology section because I don't feel it's very appropriate for the lead, and is more of an extra/non-essential addition that should be listed further down elsewhere in the article. What do you think? Tiger7253 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If we go by what is done for FA like Australia, the etymology should mention the official names but exclude any epithets. For example, Down under is not mentioned (but is instead mentioned at Name_of_Australia#Other_epithets_and_nicknames). Likewise for Singapore, the etymology section should talk about the name Singapore/Singapura. I also think it should talk about "Temasek" as the name was historically used. Epithets like "Garden city" and "little red dot" should be mentioned at Names of Singapore. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Nicknames are very common in such articles and I have seen many interesting ones prominently placed in leads of good articles. Maybe Australian editors do not find their nicname interesting enough? 203.78.15.149 (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not see these nicknames or epithets in any country articles, particularly not in those which are FAs and have been peer reviewed by the community. Also the question is not about whether Australian editors don't find the nickname interesting enough - it's about encyclopaedic information. Btw, articles are not restricted to editors of a particular nationality. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Citing 2 FAs that do not have nicknames in lead does not mean that all others have to remove theirs. Nicknames are highlighted prominently in Infoboxes between the flag and map in most cities articles, so it's surprising that you have not seen them or chosen to ignore them altogether. When wikipedia community designed the templates, they must have decided that nicknames are significant and should be a standard entry for cities.
Some Leads, including Infoboxes:
  • Japan (FA): "..and it is often called the Land of the Rising Sun"
  • San Francisco (FA): City by the Bay; Fog City; SanFran; Paris of the West
  • Los Angeles: "...Nicknamed the City of Angels".
  • Mumbai (GA): City of Seven Islands, City of Dreams
  • Auckland: City of Sails
  • Saudi Arabia: sometimes called "the Land of the Two Holy Mosques"
A small sample. There are hundreds, perhaps a few thousand place articles to check. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted. You are comparing Apples to Oranges. Do comparison to country articles which are FA. The rising sun in Japan exists because it is part of the Kanji which makes up the name. Is "Garden city" part of Singapore's name? Stuff like this doesn't belong in the lead. Also, I noticed that it was added boldly by you, so you are the one who needs to demonstrate consensus to retain the stuff. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"Lion City" relates to the origin of Singapore's name, similar to "Land of the Rising Sun". Wrigleygum (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the other editors are not here yet I will just add this: There is no Wikipedia policies to support your contention that we need to depend on FA articles for including/excluding nicknames. City Infoboxes with the Nickname parameter clearly encourages editors to insert notable nicknames. What WP guideline are you relying on please? Shiok (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policies to support your contention that we need to depend on FA articles for including/excluding nicknames Well maybe you should a read and explore a bit more to see that you are wrong. We do stuff by policies, guidelines and precedence. You haven't been here long enough or even contributed enough to know it. So when experienced editors are telling you, learn to accept it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wrigleygum: You are the one who added that initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it. Go ahead and demonstrate it. Launch an RFC or show your support here. Do not edit war. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Fine, I wil continue other comments tomorrow. It's late Wrigleygum (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Great, so you didn't have a supporting argument, but you still reverted? Not sure what point you wanted to prove, but stuff like this is exactly what gets editors blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Quite silly. Everyone who add contents usually post them directly unless it is protected or concerns WP policy, guides and similar. Consensus usually comes later when there is a dispute Shiok (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Please familiarise yourself with the concepts of bold edits, reverts and the need for consensus on disputes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Added:
  • Wellington: Windy Wellington, Welly, the Harbour City.
  • Chicago: "..Chicago has many nicknames, the best-known being the Windy City".
- Wrigleygum (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and those are countries? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Singapore is a City-state - both a City and Country. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Show me other city states which have it. We just don't put random epithets in the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You're trying to be difficult of course. Please find a third party opinion. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
How about you drop the stick and actually get some experience editing Wikipedia first? I can mentor you if you want. You realise that in the RFC above almost everyone except your buddy SPAs supported that fact that it was undue? And mind you, these are editors much more experience that you. Try listening to some of us, we have been here for a while and we know how stuff works. If you just won't listen, then I will have to seek a PBAN for you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It's simple - Are you concern about finding a a third party opinion? Wrigleygum (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You know what? The RFC attracted multiple editors and none agreed with you. That should give you a clue that your understanding of guidelines and policies is waaaaay off. But we don't do RFCs for every single stuff. It is considered stonewalling changes and is disruptive. I am asking you to drop the stick and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you concern about finding a a third party opinion on this thread? A simple request, compared to ANIs, RFCs etc. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, I won't go for a third opinion. The problem here is your general lack of competence along with an WP:IDHT attitude. That needs to be addressed first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hardly, sources and RS at that are the main things. If you avoid the suggestion, you're concern it will be against you. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I have already shown you how stuff works here. In the RFC, you and your SPA buddies got no support. I have no hesitation in starting another RFC if I want. But you know, that wastes a lot of community time. And when the issue here is that you are the one who is wrong, the quickest way is to deal with you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I do my best because I believe in Trust being the critical, unless you know a better metric that helps a nation suceed. (I'm not in politics). As I said earlier, so be it if the RFC goes against. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually not everyone, looking at it, some like the topic -sans the stats in the lead. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Article tag[edit]

@Lemongirl942:, please explain your reasons for the POV Tags here. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Stuff in the lead is undue and needs to be trimmed. There is consensus about this here. Also in the current RFC, you can see and that none of the established editors have supported your views (and by extension, those of Warpslider and Shiok). They have agreed with me that the stuff is undue. That should give you a clue that you are wrong here and you clearly do not understand the policies and guidelines of how Wikipedia works. Which is why I am suggesting you to drop the stick and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The Gallup World Polls RFC (2nd) will be what it is. I haven't the time to answer some of the points posted by responders yet, so we'll see. This section is about consensus on putting up the tags - and you do not have that consensus. Wrigleygum (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Please educate yourself about the policies. Go ahead and ask any admin if there is a problem with the lead. If there is, the tag stays. You need consensus to remove it, not put it on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
In the preceeding section, you wrote "You are the one who added that initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it" - which means you are implicating yourself. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you unable to understand what is consensus? Can you even read the RFC? Did you realise that nobody supported your position? You have no understand of guidelines and I am honestly suggesting you to lay off. This is getting irritating. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, pls expand on what you mean here if its a tag - "You are the one who added that initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it". Wrigleygum (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Did you read Template:POV#When_to_remove? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
We can get to that.
If your sentence is "You are the one who added the TAG initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it". If you said that to yourself... Wrigleygum (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
That is not my sentence. I did not say that consensus is required for adding a tag. Now please do not divert and show which of the conditions at Template:POV#When_to_remove have been satisfied that you have removed the tag. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I guess you cannot justify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you in denial that is your sentence. What if I prove it? -Wrigleygum (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Find me the diff where I said "You are the one who added the TAG initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it". Go ahead show me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Once again... "You are the one who added that initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it". - This is your original sentence correct? I asked that you substitute that with Tag. Which means your sentence will incriminate yourself Wrigleygum (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I asked that you substitute that with Tag. Which means your sentence will incriminate yourself And therein lies your problem. We do not substitute words in other people's quotes and use it; we do not put words in people's mouth. My original comment was NOT about tags, it was about adding content. But of course, you are not experienced enough to understand that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

An edit can be adding content, tags, templates etc - after you put it up and another editor disputes it, WP says that you must then go to consensus, that's about it. - Wrigleygum (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, the guidelines are much more nuanced than that, a point which you seem unable to grasp. Tags can be added by anyone, and they can only be removed if certain conditions are true. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Shall we agree its not you alone to decide when it is removed? Actually shouldn't be a question, just seeing your response. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It requires a consensus - so go ahead and get consensus (and no, your SPA friends don't count). Start an RFC for removing the tag and demonstrate that the community agrees with you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Body text edits[edit]

@SashiRolls: all the sources are supposed to be in the body text, but some may have been removed recently and I will see what is appropriate to restore. Other new citations are in [POV and WP:UNDUE in lead] above - to be added. As for 'incorrupt', all dictionaries seem to have the definition, except for Google's internal one I guess. Searching on "incorrupt government" or anything else will find many hits. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=incorrupt I think the word you're looking for is corruption-free. Still, I do agree with LemonGirl that you would better serve Singapore by working towards a more balanced presentation. Still don't see anything about its long-standing tenure on tax haven lists in the lead... (I guess some lists are to be preferred to others?) ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Generally, I would agree. But where we have disagreement and the debate goes in circles, I would look to comparable cities/countries, as I pointed out in "Specific Issues above". For example, you can hardly find a major global city with negatives in them. The other way is to see if the metric - like tax haven - is quoted in the cities targetted. It should not be a double standard for Singapore and turning a blind eye for others. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
you can hardly find a major global city with negatives in them. Please see WP:SEWAGE. Your attitude seems to be that we should drag all articles down to the lowest common denominator. No we don't do that. If you feel some articles are unbalanced, go ahead and fix them. Don't bring that unbalance here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you mean "You don't want to do that". Do not use "We". Find me some major cities, I will listen. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You are the one who made the WP:OSE argument. You said "you can hardly find a major global city with negatives in them". That is not a good reason to remove negative information from here. In fact, this statement shows that you have no understanding of how NPOV works. On Wikipedia, NPOV is a core policy where we go by weight. If you feel other city articles are missing any negative information and you can justify that it wouldn't be undue, then go ahead and add that negative info. I would actually like to see your attempts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm just asking you to find me some cities, like I showed you for the Nicknames. There are dozens and dozens of global cities. Why the parry :) Wrigleygum (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
My goodness, we have a WP:CIR here lol. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Wrigleygum, you have completely missed the OSE argument here. Our policies of NPOV and weight reign supreme. Nothing is compromised before this. Just because other articles are badly written, doesn't mean this one has to be badly written either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I can debate that but I'm focussed on my question to you first. Can you find some cities? After all I did do my part for Nicknames. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What exactly are you trying to ask? And how is that related to this? Mind explaining? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Finding major global cities with negatives in their lead. Just for fun. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Great. Since it has no other purpose than your own amusement, and it is not related to article, you are welcome to do it at your leisure. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Which basically means Singapore may be the only major city with a negative. That's your aim right? Wrigleygum (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Which basically means Singapore may be the only major city with a negative. That's your aim right? Hahahahahaha, nice straw man you got there. Lol, did I stop you from adding anything negative to any other city? By all means, go ahead. Make them neutral, if you feel it improves the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually there is one which Nick put in. No matter, it will be a positive..like keeping it real they say. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wrigleygum: I checked. You're right. Nothing in the lead of Delaware, Panama, Luxembourg, Bahamas... only Monaco has the words "tax haven". I retract my suggestion, which wasn't really that serious (though it felt more serious when I said it earlier, I admit, because I'd just read the articles). Looking at those pages, though, I did notice the leads were all much shorter and treated history in broad brush strokes, before a short paragraph or two on today. Here it's the opposite 1 paragraph of 6 (or 7?) on history, which seems to start with Raffles o.O SashiRolls (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, do you think removal of links may be overdone? while I agree many links to common terms is excessive, easy access to supporting sub-articles is useful for additional information as well as references stated there. For example someone had a inline Citation-needed for "British built the large Singapore Naval Base as part of the defensive Singapore strategy." They could have found it in Singapore Strategy. This is History section but applies even more in the lead which most visitors will read. And cut down on excessive citations. best Shiok (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are any that you really feel should be added back, be bold! I've learned here that a lot of good work has been done in the Singapore category, and this page tried to cram as many links to that work as possible (unfortunately into the lead). What I think would be more effective is something like what you see on the Buddhism page (among others): a navbox that says "part of a series on". I'm trying to work out the syntax for including a navbox/sidebar into the infobox... for the moment without success. It looks like "part of a series on" would need to be set up in the templates, and I am not an experienced template editor, as this comment shows. ^^ Note also the problem of sourcing claims to wikipedia pages (which was quite prevalent in the lead prior to the delinking). {{Singapore topics}} SashiRolls (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I have just formatted your comment so as to avoid transcluding the template. My understanding has been that the lead should not have many links. What should be ideally kept are links to sub-topics which are highly relevant to the article. For example, Languages of Singapore is a highly relevant subtopic. The idea behind a lead is to keep it free of clutter and link only the most important topics. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
--Yes, think I will look to add some back. "^^ Note also the problem of sourcing claims to wikipedia pages (which was quite prevalent in the lead prior to the delinking)" - do you mind explaining this, not sure what you meant. Are those ^^ raised eyebrows, like the more common ^_^ ?  :). Shiok (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Lemongirl942, and yes, Shiok, ^^, above, was a sign of my amusement at my own incompetence. Six commas, surely one could go... ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Note also the problem of sourcing claims to wikipedia pages (which was quite prevalent in the lead prior to the delinking) - Actually I was referring to this sentence. Do you mind explaining? Shiok (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sure. In the following text (which has since been modified): " [...] life expectancy, quality of life, personal safety, and housing. Although income inequality is high, 90% of resident households own their homes, and the country has one of the highest per capita incomes, with low taxes. " the original author sourced the claims that S'pore scored highly on life expectancy, quality of life, personal safety, home ownership, per capita income, and low taxes by linking to Wikipedia pages. Since then someone has added the same sort of Wikipedia reference for the (Economist's) "Democracy Index", whereas a footnote to an RS (in all of the cases) would be more appropriate (although, since it is the lead, a reader should be able to assume that these links are in the body of the text below in principle, right?). SashiRolls (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Modern state and entities in infobox[edit]

Tiger7253, the infobox is supposed to summarise the modern state continuously associated with the current sovereign entity. As such, the classical entities are not mentioned. This is consistent with all country articles, see Australia and India for examples. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Education Attainments - Explanation for removal unclear[edit]

@Lemongirl942:, please explain your removal of the Education attainments which has been here for more than a year - "Remove per undue, recentism. Some aren't even rankings." - In particular why undue and recentism, since Singapore has been near the top for 2 decades.

Singaporean students consistently rank at or near the top of international education assessments:

  • In 2016, Singapore placed first in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) conducted by IEA' taken by 4th- and 8th-graders. It has been ranked in the top three since 1995.[5][6][7][8]
  • In 2015, Singapore topped the OECD's global school performance rankings, based on 15-year-old students' average scores in mathematics and science across 76 countries.[9][10]
  • Singapore fared best in the 2015 International Baccalaureate exams, taken in 107 countries, with more than half of the world's 81 perfect scorers and 98% passing rate.[11]
  • In 2016, Singapore placed 6th in the EF English Proficiency Index taken in 72 countries, the first Asian country to enter the top ten.[12][13][14][15][16] -Shiok (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC). (Note: Citations updated by Wrigleygum (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ "Pisa tests: Singapore top in global education rankings". BBC News. 7 December 2016. 
  2. ^ "PISA: Singapore teens top global education ranking". CNN. 6 December 2016. 
  3. ^ "Why Singapore's kids are so good at maths". Financial Times. 22 July 2016. 
  4. ^ S’pore students top in science, maths and reading in Pisa test | TODAYonline 6 Dec 2016
  5. ^ "Singapore students top in maths, science and reading in Pisa international benchmarking test". The Straits Times. 6 December 2016. 
  6. ^ "U.S. Teenagers Lose Ground in International Math Exam, Raising Competitiveness Concerns". The Wall Street Journal. 6 December 2016. 
  7. ^ "UK Schools climb international league table". The Guardian. 6 December 2016. 
  8. ^ "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study". IEA. Retrieved 6 December 2016. 
  9. ^ "Singapore tops OECD's global school ranking, US placed 28th". 13 May 2015. 
  10. ^ "Singapore tops biggest global education rankings published by OECD". The Straits Times. 13 May 2015. 
  11. ^ "Over half of International Baccalaureate top scorers from Singapore". The Straits Times. 5 January 2016. 
  12. ^ Nylander, Johan (14 November 2016). "Singaporeans among top English speakers; Hong Kong slides". www.atimes.com. Retrieved 16 November 2016. 
  13. ^ "Dutch Pass Danes to Become World's Best English Speakers". Yahoo News. 15 November 2016. 
  14. ^ "The Nordics have the highest English proficiency in the world - and it's boosting their tech and innovation". Business Insider. 16 Nov 2016. 
  15. ^ "Politics and the English language: why Singapore is ahead of Hong Kong". South China Morning Post. 31 October 2016. 
  16. ^ "How Well is English Spoken Worldwide?". Voice of America News. 15 November 2016. 
I made my edit removing the specific bullets because I felt the examples were overspecific. They refer to specific tests and specific years, and these do not provide a strong narrative. I kept the sources but generalised the statement to note strength in Maths and Science, which is concise but puts the point across without banging on about it. It would be preferable too to have a secondary source that discusses Singapore's movement in these rankings rather than the primary sources we have, but I think the primary sources do suffice if nothing else is found. CMD (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Precisely. This article should summarise existing knowledge and not cherry pick rankings for one particular year. And everything should be based on secondary third-party sources giving due weight.
The EF English Proficiency Index is a pretty unreliable poll which has problems with sampling. A few years back, Singapore was behind Malaysia in English proficiency. (And we wouldn't cherry pick and include that either)
The International Baccalaureate is simply performance in one particular exam in one year. This is precisely what is recentism.
As for the OECD, I added the Programme for International Student Assessment which is name of the specific test and ranking. We have to select and add only the most important stuff here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Note, I also removed that 2015 OECD thing from the lead (along with other unsourced stuff). The lead is supposed to summarise information. It already had the sentence It is ranked highly in education..., so we don't need to stuff more info. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd never heard of the EF English Proficiency Index before. Looking into it, simply saying "top 10" is misleading, as the index is not global. It critically doesn't include countries where English is the predominant home language. Include these pushes Singapore out of the top 10. All that aside, English in Singapore is at a high-level internationally. The question is whether this is already expressed in our paragraph on how Education takes place in English, or if something else is needed. CMD (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis:These have been in the article for a long time and a staple in many country/city articles. For these education stats, whatever reasons you put across will not override that OECD, Times and similar organisations report some of the most important education metrics and closely followed by researchers. Specificity is preferred because they are objective and let the reader decide if they are significant. I shall be putting those back. As for EF Proficiency, major reliable sources I updated also report on them. As you well know, we are not suppose to interpret notability ourselves, just to verify that Reliable Sources report on them. However, since EF Proficiency was inserted recently (it was here a few days before she decided to remove it again) - I will set it aside first, leaving it here for discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrigleygum (talkcontribs)
Bullet point educational rankings are a staple in country and city articles? No-one has overridden anyone here. I specifically said above for example, that "English in Singapore is at a high-level internationally". That hasn't been an argument made by anyone. We are supposed to interpret notability in terms of article content ourselves; it's the basis of WP:SummaryStyle and is through this a part of WP:GACR and WP:FACR. Further, I note that you just removed a Democracy Index ranking on the basis that it is similar to a Freedom House ranking, yet here you reinsert multiple rankings, with three consecutive sentences repeating Science and Maths stats. CMD (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As you well know, we are not suppose to interpret notability ourselves, just to verify that Reliable Sources report on them. We are definitely supposed to interpret what to add and how much to add - we just do this based on the quality of sources and the weight. I have never seen a list of educational ranks as a "staple" in any good/featured article. Essentially, we are supposed to summarise information. You can look at Australia#Education for an example (though that could be improved and trimmed a bit as well). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
On the question of educational attainment, I think it is also important to mention educational caning. The high performance of S'pore and S Korea on tests like the PISA have always lead me to wonder about the role of strong discipline in giving students the ability to fill in bubbles correctly (or demonstrate evidence of skills, etc.) In any case, the base article on S'pore should certainly mention the various forms of caning (judicial, educational, military...) or so it seems to me. After all, it's pretty likely that S'pore is also #1 in bruised buttocks (boyz only, of course). ^^ (There's also lit. on Singapore math in pedagogic journals, but that might be a bit more for a different article... SashiRolls (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Judicial caning is mentioned in the article, in the Government and Politics section. It is true there is no mention of school caning: this is covered in the separate Caning in Singapore article. We could add a one-sentence mention of it in the Education section of this main article, if people think it appropriate. -- Alarics (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis:, I would oppose the removal strongly, there has been not a lot of discussion except the two of you. I have made my case for Statistics format where specificity of rankings is important instead of general statements to hide the high achievements. If this is your steadfast stand, we will need to go in dispute resolution. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is determined based on policies and guidelines, precedence in FA (peer reviewed) articles and to a limited extent on editor opinion. The relevant guideline over here is WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT (which btw is not negotiable). We try not to overemphasise one particular ranking. No one is hiding any high achievements but we are putting it in context - the sentence mentions that Singaporean students rank highly in Maths and Science. In fact, instead of the primary sources in the article which are examples of ranking for one year, there are better secondary third-party sources such as this (ABC) and this (FT) to support the statement. These sources analyse the primary rankings and summarise the information for us - and this is why we prefer to use secondary sources. If you look carefully, these sources also do a balanced job - they look at both the pros and the cons - which helps to have an NPOV article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
You discussed as well, but did not reply to our responses to you for five days in which you were editing. Anyway, where do you get the idea that I am making "general statements to hide the high achievements"? I explicitly wrote "some of the best educated in the world". It's not the most professional of wording, but hiding high achievements? It's hard to achieve higher than best in the world. So no, clearly you have no idea what my steadfast stand is. CMD (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
There was a lot going on including the RFC at that time so I left it. That's my impression of your recent bold removal as it took out these stats while leaving behind more obvious unessential ones, ie buses operators, cabs so forth. Though I did see your restore of 'Singapore model', education is the nation's pillar - so instead of a general "one of the best", the data points are objective numbers for readers to decide for themselves the significance of the attainment. A recent update last week has confirmed similar results going back more than 2 decades. I am updating citations with the new TIMSS reports and reinstating it. Bullets can be discussed but I think it makes it more readable. Please do not remove again. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I am opposed to adding that, so I suggest whoever wants to add it, should demonstrate consensus for adding it here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes I was the one who removed the bus and transport details, days after education was removed. Wrigleygum, the news also just reported that we had yet another report from OECD-PISA that Singapore students again did the best in all tests (every 3 years). Add this to the Timss report last week. These are not small matters and we should be entitled to have it specifically in the article - no summary please! It is quite amazing to see the few people here trying to deny the country's achievements. Shiok (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks will copyedit a bit. Wrigleygum (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Languages in the lead[edit]

"There are four official languages on the island: Malay, Tamil, Mandarin and English. Since English is used on the island as a common language, many Singaporeans are at least bilingual. Its cultural diversity is reflected in its extensive ethnic "hawker" cuisine and major festivals—Chinese, Malay, Indian, Western—which are all national holidays." - It is crowded. The sentence - "Since English is the common language, Singaporeans are at least bilingual" - You mean you agree with this. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Languages are an encyclopaedic topic and we have added them to the lead. The lead is crowded because a lot of random rankings have been added. If you remove those, it will be OK. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It is crowded, but I find it difficult to see how the situations surrounding languages is more expendable as part of a summary of Singapore than a description of a particular cuisine form (which is "extensive"?) and a categorisation of national holidays. CMD (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Simply because it is in the Infobox. I see someone removed the reference to Singapore being one of the highest income countries too, it's also in infobox so I didn't bother about it.
The sentence - "Since English is the common language, Singaporeans are at least bilingual" - You have not replied if you agree with this grammar. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The core of every wikipedia article is the prose. Infoboxes, templates, images, and anything else merely complements the prose. I've restored your wording, although it lacks serious context due to the lack of demographic information in the lead (when and where did that go?). CMD (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Good point. It wasn't there when I combed through. SashiRolls (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I admit that was a bit of OR in my edit, sorry, the current text is better! (When I was there 30 years ago, multilingualism was more prevalent than today apparently: "After 50 years of language policy and language changes, Singaporeans are still bilingual. But we now see a difference between generations. The older generation is multilingual, like the norm used to be, while the younger generation is bilingual, usually with English and one “mother tongue". [2] SashiRolls (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So much unsourced (seeking consensus)[edit]

I'm evahso-slightly horrified by how much of this article is "factual" statements without ICs. I just got rid of one particularly-egregious synthetic sentence (along with it's lede twin), but there's a high background radiation of plenty more where that came from.

So, seeking consensus, I see three options: I feel it would be lame to merely plonk a refimprove hatnote. I hesitate to litter the article with [citation needed]s. Should we simply be bold and excise unref'ed statements? ... richi (hello) 10:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Richi, Just on the AAA ratings, the citations are in the body and have been there since before I came around. Have you not checked? What's wrong? Just glancing through, the references in the body seems extensive. Topics added by me has references except the "core values" found earlier - so that sentence has been taken out. And I added more recently in this Talk page above. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Naturally I did check; please AGF. Of course, I might have missed something. Perhaps you'd let me know how we can ref the "10-year" sentence I removed. ... richi (hello) 11:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
IC, will check myself, all the refs? Actually I would encourage anyone to add CN anywhere needed. I think few editors has checked the latest year's data on many topics. Even the editor working on the 'foreign reserves' table has stopped a year back. Wrigleygum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Richi: Here's the data we needed and its more than a decade - received highest credit ratings since 1995 - 2003.[1]
[www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/rating]. To check your own/other countries - replace 'Singapore' with 'Country'
Agency -Rating -Outlook -Date
Fitch, AAA, Stable, May 14 2003
Moody's, Aaa, Stable, Jun 14 2002
S&P, AAA, Stable, Mar 06 1995
- Wrigleygum (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "There is much for Australia to admire about neighbour Singapore". The Australian. 22 June 2016. Singapore’s AAA credit rating reflects decades of political stability 
@Wrigleygum: awesome work. I suspect we can't use the news cite, due to it not being WP:V. But the table and link will be very useful. I'll refactor the earlier text to suit. Thanks again ... richi (hello) 14:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Took me a while too! Wrigleygum (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, tradingeconomics.com is WP:SPB'ed, so can't be used ... richi (hello) 14:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you richi for starting this. The problems are not only with the unsourced stuff, but also with the quality of the references. I have seen a bunch of unreliable SPS used all over the article. I was thinking of improving this to a GA, but the refs will require significant cleanup. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you'll note I've started working from the bottom up. In verifying some of the refs, I'm finding several that either don't support the text, or that are mere government PR, which doesn't even count as a PRIMARY ... richi (hello) 14:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes it's good work, a chore for many editors to maintain. Thanks. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@SashiRolls: thanks for digging that up! I feel we're getting somewhere ... richi (hello)
@Richi: my pleasure, thanks for the positive attitude! SashiRolls (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Richi, what is the point of flooding unsourced paragraphs with multiple cn tags? It is clear the paragraph is unsourced, and the unnecessary proliferation of tags makes the paragraph harder to read. CMD (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: yes, it does make it harder to read. Which is why I hesitated to do it. Two other editors encouraged me to have a go, though. So I started with a few grafs near the bottom. Feel free to add your opinion to the RFC above ... richi (hello) 21:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not proposing to add any more CNs. I wanted to highlight the extent of the problem, as I see it ... richi (hello) 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree unsourced material should be tagged, but you're effectively just adding more tags to things that are already tagged. It doesn't add more extent, just makes the article harder to read for no benefit. CMD (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Government and Politics, Lead[edit]

@Lemongirl942:These are WP:RELIABLE sourced content that's been in the Lead section since last year. Please explain fully why you wish to remove them. An "Undue" in your edit summary is not enough. In the meantime, it stays in the article. Please do not remove it again.

"Singapore is noted for its effective, pragmatic and incorrupt governance and civil service, which together with its rapid development policies, is widely cited as the "Singapore model".[1][2][3] Gallup polls shows 84% of its residents expressed confidence in the national government, and 85% in its judicial systems—one of the highest ratings recorded.[4] Singapore has significant influence on global affairs relative to its size, leading some analysts to classify it as a middle power. It is ranked as Asia's most influential city and 4th in the world by Forbes.[5]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). [6]</ref> " ---Shiok (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Shiok (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. ^ "Lee Kuan Yew's Legacy: The Singapore Model of Clean Governance". Huffington Post. 22 May 2015. Singapore is widely considered as a role model for developing countries yearning to establish more prosperous societies 
  2. ^ "The Singapore Solution". National Geographic. January 2010. Lee masterminded the celebrated "Singapore Model" converting a country.. with no natural resources and a fractured mix of ethnicities, into "Singapore, Inc".. The model—a unique mix of economic empowerment and tightly controlled personal liberties—has inspired imitators in China, Russia, and eastern Europe 
  3. ^ "Days of Reflection for the Man Who Defined Singapore". The New York Times. 10 September 2010. 
  4. ^ "Lee Kuan Yew's Lasting Legacy: A Good Life in Singapore". Gallup. 16 March 2016. 
  5. ^ "London the most influential city in the world according to Forbes". Telegraph. 18 August 2014. 
  6. ^ London tops Forbes list of the world's most influential cities in 2014 - The Independent,
Oppose: All else being equal, the length of time a passage remains in an article is immaterial. Content in the lede should conform to WP:MOSLEAD unless there's a darn good reason ... richi (hello) 23:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait, what do you mean? It's not in the lede ... richi (hello) 23:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Richi, itis alright to oppose but there has to be good reasons for sourced content. Everyone have an opinion what's important to them agree? Shiok (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly, no. Decisions should be made by consensus, guided by established policy. IMHO, WP:BRD is an apposite discussion in this case, but see also its #Alternatives section ... richi (hello) 00:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey you're fast. Well that's what I meant. Consensus taking into account everyone's opinion. Shiok (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was recently added on 19 November and I removed it. The sourcing is pretty bad here. I mean the Forbes is a contributor article and we consider that equivalent to SPS. So is the Huffpost article. Not everything that is sourced has to be included. We determine what goes in by the quality of sources, determining WP:DUE weight and ensuring there is no WP:OR. The gallup poll is entirely sourced to a primary source and adding that metric here would be giving undue weight to one particular poll. (What is due and undue can be difficult to understand at first - this is something that is learnt gradually). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Content is not simply put into the article, let alone the lead, simply because it is reliable sourced. Something being sourced is not an argument for inclusion. (Furthermore the middle power bit isn't sourced there, but again that's besides the point.) That being said, I can see some merit to the points behind the text, and I'm sure they should be somewhere in the article. A mention in the lead I'm less sure about, but it would depend on how it fits into the rest of the lead. Either way however, the prose above should not go in. It is poorly written and peacocky. CMD (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • CMD, do you see the changes that Richi did as sufficient for the time being to keep it in the body? Or can you rephrase it so that we leave it at the place I inserted. There is at least wrigleygum and myself here who wants it and I don't see how you can reject that the mention of Singapore model and its influence is undue. There may well be other sources as well, end even the Australian AAA article above mentions the SG model for China and India. Shiok (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see what changes Richi made, I'm focusing on the formulation on this talkpage. In any case, that section as it stands shouldn't be in the body. The various salient points could be, but separated out into places they're relevant rather than as a series of platitudes. CMD (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

*Keep. strike duplicate !vote - OP is already a vote Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC) These are long-standing recognitions Singapore as received over decades. It is just a matter of debate whether it goes into the lead. Just how did "Telegraph" reported Forbes story wrong? There's no retraction to date and their reputation as a credible newspaper would be at stake. Found a few other sources easily. Shiok (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The Forbes source is a contributor article and these (or any reprints of these) are not considered reliable source. This is because it is simply an opinion of the writer - and not endorsed by Forbes or subject to editorial control at Forbes. You can read the article in the Independent to understand the difference. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You may or may not have a point. But you should wait for Consensus. I don't like the way you are reverting before discussion. Furthermore you are disregarding Richi's edits on the same content Shiok (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Shiok: You added this on 19th November. Consensus has to be demonstrated for adding content to the article. You are the one who need to demonstrate consensus for keeping these here. I am strongly asking you to self revert otherwise I will consider reporting you to AN3. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid The Telegraph lost its reputation here in the UK a few years ago, IMHO. It's better than WP:DAILYMAIL, but heading in the same junk, clickwhore direction. And reports like these don't help. Anyway, its report on the city ranking is thoroughly confusing: It says Singapore was in 5th place, not 4th, and implied Singapore was 2nd in Asia, after Tokyo. But then it copies the correct list below the fold. It doesn't even cite the Forbes article. However, the Independent reportage is much better: Rather than just say "Forbes" it has a decent go of attributing the contributors, quoting their bona fides.
As for whether a Forbes "contributor" article is a RS, it depends. I do have some insider knowledge of how Forbes operates, and I can say there are plenty of Forbes articles that most definitely are not RS! Full disclosure: I was the managing editor for one such Forbes microsite, 2012–2015; I would never permit WP to cite any of "my" articles. But this contributor is "the R.C. Hobbs Professor of Urban Studies at Chapman University in California," and his collaborators are said to be an urban geographer, a former Accenture analyst, and a demographer. I dare say it's also in his book (ISBN 978-1572841727).
Finally, as I said in my edit summary, I tried to seek a compromise, but failed. We're now back to the D of WP:BRD: Please do not edit-war by reverting it back into the article. Seek WP:Consensus#Through_discussion ... richi (hello) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Richi:, you made a good argument and I do appreciate it. It is more than any others have done here so far, esp by including the background material. Will go through it later. I missed your edit summary earlier so copied here it here - WP:Verified refs to ensure text matched. Ranking was not "by Forbes", but by a contributor (see WP:DAILYMAIL). Telegraph reported Forbes story wrong. NatGeo paywalled.). Not sure what "but by a contributor (see WP:DAILYMAIL)" has to do with Forbes. Does the contributor work for Dailymail, or the later published his work in the same way as Forbes? Why would so many other RS pick up the story or quote for it if this is the case do you think? Wrigleygum (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • thanks, but I don't think I'm saying anything other than restating how WP works, as are User:Lemongirl942 and CMD. If you read WP:DAILYMAIL, you'll see the consensus view on Forbes "contributors"—it's nothing to do with The Mail, per se. I'm disappointed you're finding it hard to follow this discussion, but I do assume you're making a sincere effort to help. Why not try a WP:Wikibreak? ... richi (hello) 17:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Wrigleygum:, there has been a long standing consensus that Forbes contributor columns are generally considered WP:SPS. In addition, unless it is by a staff, it is considered the contributor's opinion (not a Forbes ranking). For country articles, we tend to rely on high quality sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Richi, I'm just reading your link reports like these - There are comments in Talk like "Why is this project page even allows?". It is not active and there is no rating on the 'Impact Scale' - some sort of wp community assessment apparently. Shiok (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note that London includes exactly the same "Most influential city" statistic and Forbes attribution in its article.
In 2014 Forbes magazine ranked London as the most influential city in the world.[1] In February 2014 London was ranked as the European City of the Future [2] in the 2014/15 list by FDi Magazine.[3] - Wrigleygum (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Please note that London includes exactly the same "Most influential city" statistic and Forbes attribution in its article - In 2014 Forbes magazine ranked London as the most influential city in the world.[4]
So do not place a double standard for Singapore, which I think a number of opposers are.

References

  1. ^ Kotkin, Joel. "The World's Most Influential Cities". Retrieved 26 September 2015. 
  2. ^ "London named as European City of the Future". London&Partners. London. 17 February 2014. 
  3. ^ "European Cities and Regions of the Future 2014/15". fDiIntelligence.com. London. 17 February 2014. 
  4. ^ Kotkin, Joel. "The World's Most Influential Cities". Retrieved 26 September 2015. 
- Wrigleygum (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Wrigleygum (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Which opposers have argued to include the statistic in the London article? CMD (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This is what we call a WP:OSE and WP:SEWAGE analogy. It brings stuff down to the least common denominator. That's not what we are supposed to do. None of us here have argued to keep that in London. Wrigleygum, if you feel that is double standards, try helping to clean up the other article. But just because another article is badly written doesn't mean this one has to be as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • remove WP:PROMO and putrid at that. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • remove This has already been addressed in the previous RfC. My opinion remains unchanged concerning the Gallup poll for the reasons I mentioned there. I believe we also have discussed whether "incorrupt" is a word or not and whether it means what we think it means in this context... SashiRolls (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • By the way this is not a RfC proposal, and it's just Shiok asking Lemongirl942 for clarification, why everyone is voting? NgYShung huh? 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Does it matter? informal voting and discussion. -Wrigleygum (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, but it's just a discussion between two editors, not a proposal. NgYShung huh? 07:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External country gateway links[edit]

@Jytdog: I do not see the relevant explanation in WP:ELNO regarding "one" external link per country. Can you paste it here. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

read the very first line, the bolded text. Please stop adding excess promotional links to official Singapore sites. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:ELNO "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" - I see it. There are many country articles that does not follow this the last I checked. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be far more convincing to argue something on its merits, rather than just saying other places have it. What links are under consideration, and what are the merits of these links? CMD (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Or to look at the existing ones and explain why they are not relevant, which was not done. Wrigleygum (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Just checking a few OECD countries :- Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, France, UK, New Zealand... - Seems most of them may not be in line, many with official Presidential sites, Prime Ministerial sites, Tourism, History, Ministries, etc. In the U.S., we have a few under various sections Government, Hostory, Maps. Which of these are allowed or otherwise, do you think? Wrigleygum (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog pointed to a guideline, which if you click on the bolded text like they suggested takes you to a section saying "Normally, only one official link is included." That seems pretty "done" in my reading.
I don't see what the relevancy of the OECD is to Wikipedia's external links, but again, that's WP:OSE. If they're not in line, you can fix them. Again, you have not articulated an argument for a link to be included, nor even noted which links you want included. CMD (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: CMD, you can find any guidelines/essays (which is not policy) but for some like ELNO, clearly not many editors bother about it. Then OSE is no longer relevant to cite. I wouldn't care much about these links myself as I don't think many visitors click on them. But when you are target particular articles to make a case, it bothers me and I think the community would frown on that. And I'm keen to find out, should we go to some dispute resolution or forum for wider comments? Wrigleygum (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Your repeated assertions that editors are somehow targeting or singling out this page for whatever purpose are unfounded, while also not moving content discussions forward. CMD (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I quite expected that answer but it's a fair assumption. You have the time and wide interest, so what's your reason for not 'correcting' other articles (that's practically all of them by the way). Not sure you'd succeed? Too time-consuming? Wrigleygum (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You clearly haven't perused my contributions. As for other editors, much like yourself, they put their time (limited) and energy (limited) into where they wish to. If you continue with these assertions, do not expect the arguments you put forward alongside them to be given much credence. CMD (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Well I have looked at your wide contributions indeed (Jytdog's too), and that's the reason I asked. Now that I've highlighted where ELNO fails miserably - Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, France, UK, New Zealand... As 'world editors', I was expecting some editors to be happy given a list of relevant articles to work on using the ELNO principle, but not a single country above is worthy? Wrigleygum (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Answer expected but meaningless if everyone does it. Copy:-You have the time and wide interest, so what's your reason for not 'correcting' other articles (that's practically all of them by the way). Not sure you'd succeed? Too time-consuming? Wrigleygum (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Go fix them yourself if you like. You are a Wikipedian when you edit here. You are responsible for editing according to the policies and guidelines. That is your first interest when you log in here. I am done with this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Ignored my question. Maybe he has no answer, after being given a great list to work on but turns a blind eye. -Wrigleygum (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wrigleygum your arguments are what we call WP:SEWAGE/WP:OSE. If you feel that other articles are problematic, go ahead and improve them. What's your reason for not improving them? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you turn a blind eye, you might fall into sewage. That should be my last engagement with this person. Wrigleygum (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

So I assumed you changed it. If not formation, then Independence from UK or colonial rule is more appropriate since the list starts from there.Shiok (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That field isn't meant to describe the list, but to note when the country became a country. (We probably don't need the 1819 date, but that's a different question.) Singapore set off on its own state when it separated from Malaysia. "Independence from UK" is not appropriate, as it's not what happened. CMD (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course we need 1819 colonial founding date. It's 144 years of British rule vs 2 yrs in Malaysia. You are putting forward a novel idea. But if the list exist, it needs to reflect the longer rule of the British. Shiok (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Singapore did become independent from UK by declaring itself so - just before merger with Malaysia. Shiok (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If you feel the idea that Singapore became independent from Malaysia is a novel idea, I don't know what I can say. That section is primarily to show when Singapore became sovereign. (With some leeway for multiple events demonstrating the how.) That occurred in 1965. CMD (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We do not have to mention United Kingdom or Msia in section title at all, they are already in the events list. Just 'Independence' will do. Shiok (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The sovereignty_type parameter is about the current sovereign status of the country. The "Independence from Malaysia" is fine there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Current sovereign status of Singapore is an 'independent sovereign', so the Title should simply be 'Independence', covering both events of independence from the UK and Msia which are listed. Don't need you to insert your country name in the title. Also you don't have to comment further - wait to see if CMD intends to re-revert or comment. Shiok (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't need to insert your country name in the title, 'Independence' covers both the UK and Msia

Sovereignty[edit]

Please work out your content dispute here and stop disrupting the article. Thanks.

|sovereignty_type = Independence
|established_event1 = British colonisation
|established_date1 = 6 February 1819[1]
|established_event2 = Self-government
|established_date2 = 3 June 1959[2]
|established_event3 = Independence from
United Kingdom
|established_date3 = 31 August 1963[3]
|established_event4 = Merger with Malaysia
|established_date4 = 16 September 1963[3]
|established_event5 = Expulsion from Malaysia
|established_date5 = 9 August 1965[3]

References

  1. ^ Chew, Ernest (1991). Lee, Edwin, ed. A History of Singapore. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-588917-7. 
  2. ^ Swan Sik Ko (1990). Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 424–. ISBN 0-7923-0876-X. 
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference LOC2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

From the introduction of Tan Tai Yong's Creating Greater Malaysia: "The making of Malaysia was an important watershed in the post-war history of SE Asia. It marked the end of the British Empire in SE Asia: Singapore and the Borneo territories of Sarawak and North Borneo [...] achieved their political independence through merger with Malaya [...] to constitute the new state of Malaysia." [1]

References

  1. ^ Tan Tai Yong (2008). Creating "Greater Malaysia": Decolonization & the Politics of Merger. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. p. 1. ISBN 978-981-230-743-9. 
Not sure I understand why this is leading to EW... SashiRolls (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea about the rationale behind this edit and this edit. The Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 is very clear that it became a "sovereign state" in 1965. Prior to that it was never a sovereign state. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
SashiRolls, he's right and obvious that one word covers the 2 main events in the list. Your finding is not disputed but immaterial. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking back it's hard to imagine that that the Tenku once feared that Singapore would become Cuba. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
You're not looking back hard enough! It's looking at the present that makes it hard to imagine.
Anyway, what's the argument about not noting in the sovereignty section of the infobox that Singapore became an independent country when it left Malaysia? Saying there are "two main events" is misleading. There are many things that made Singapore what it is, but there is one event that tops all others in terms of Singaporean independence, and that is the event of its independence. CMD (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't bother about it before but he is right about using a single word. Even if there is only independence from UK (and supposing Malaysia event never happened), 'Independence' as section title is concise and nuff. What is in the 'present that makes it hard to imagine' btw? -your take. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Singapore has been much more successful than Cuba in quite a few ways! CMD (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
For me it is very clear. Singapore became an independent sovereign state only after Independence from Malaysia - and there are citations for that. I don't see citations saying that Singapore became an independent sovereign state in 1963. The Infobox template very clearly mentions
|sovereignty_type =   <!--Brief description of country/territory's status ("Independence [from...]", "Autonomous province [of...]", etc)-->
So if someone wants to debate that, please do so at Template talk:Infobox country. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No. It should be pretty simple: to join a sovereign federation, the member parts must themselves be sovereign.SashiRolls (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  • this is difficult as there is a history that is not binary, and infoboxes don't deal well with complication. Lemongirl, you are not disputing that Singapore became independent after the brits left, then joined malaysia, then became independent of malyasia, are you? and am i correct that in your view, the infobox should discuss current status only (so is now independent, and attained this independence after leaving malaysia)... is that right? Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I would dispute that presentation. While there is a legal argument to make (and has been made), Singapore's departure from the UK was not to become an independent state, as would be assumed with the note of becoming independent. It was to formalise the transition. I've seen similar arguments deployed for Sabah and Sarawak, and they're similarly unconvincing. Treating a legal transitional phase as a period of sovereign independence is misleading, and other sources do not accord that period any importance whatsoever. Similar arguments are sometimes deployed for Sabah and Sarawak, but the reality and the way other sources discuss it is that the importance of 1963 was the transfer from British sovereignty to Malaysian sovereignty.
As for keeping a single word "Independence", why? It is less information for no purpose. The box allows for two things, to present the circumstances of sovereignty (ie. independence from Malaysia) and then to note the time of this occurrence (with additional dates if there are other important parts of the process to consider). CMD (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
OK I am just trying to sort the arguments. So you and (maybe) Lemongirl see the separation from Britain not as "independence" as not real but a transition state. So what refs do we have?
  • lemongirl brought the Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 as a ref, but it doesn't speak to whether or not singapore had been independent before - it just says going forward, it will be. (what a concise, elegant treaty btw!). So it doesn't support the claim that there was no prior period of independence, unless I missed something.
  • above, the following was brought: Tan Tai Yong's Creating Greater Malaysia: "The making of Malaysia was an important watershed in the post-war history of SE Asia. It marked the end of the British Empire in SE Asia: Singapore and the Borneo territories of Sarawak and North Borneo [...] achieved their political independence through merger with Malaya [...] to constitute the new state of Malaysia." cited to Tan Tai Yong (2008). Creating "Greater Malaysia": Decolonization & the Politics of Merger. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. p. 1. ISBN 978-981-230-743-9. . So that is ambiguous, just reading that. Right? It clearly getting free of the UK but gaining independence through the merger supports the transition state thing.
So let me ask, who has refs that address the whole 1960s period and actually come out and discuss two periods of pure independence for Singapore per se, or say explicitly that there was only the one, beginning from separation from Malaysia? Neither side has provided definitive refs. The way to resolve this to actually bring your refs. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Asking for an explicit note of only one period of separation is a bit like asking for proof there are no black swans. I would contend however that a perusal of sources will show few devote any time to the purported first period. This official government website for example, ignores it, and fixates upon 31 August instead as the initial planned date for the formation of Malaysia. In fact, as the source used to support the first independence claim notes, the 15 day stretch was an unplanned administrative limbo, due to the previously agreed date for British relinquishment being unchanged when the date for Malaysian formation was pushed back. CMD (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
You either have reliable sources that support your claim that there was only the one period of independence or you don't. this ref is ambiguous. IT says "On August 31, Lee declared Singapore to be independent with the PAP government to act as trustees for fifteen days until the formation of Malaysia on September 16. " and it says "On August 9... in a televised press conference, Lee declared Singapore a sovereign, democratic, and independent state" That actually supports the claim of the two-date people. So really, if you have great sources please bring them. They need to directly support the argument that there was no initial independence (it will do that by not using the word to describe that period). Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
That is indeed the crux of the Black Swan fallacy. However, my argument was not that there was not an initial period of independence. My argument was that the two periods are not remotely equivalent (hence my mention of the presentation), as the first was linked to the move into Malaysia, whereas the second was a movement into a new permanent situation. The 15 day period was a transitional phase, which is not mutually exclusive as to whether or not its independence was real or not.
The sources I provided present the two situations extremely differently, as in the second was important whereas the first was not, as do all sources I've read. This book on Singaporean law devotes a single sentence to this period and does not mention it as having any impact, as opposed to the merger with Malaysia and separation from Malaysia which both had extensive legal ramifications. Singapore actually obtained its constitution as a State of Malaysia while still under British rule, and thus had this state constitution during the transition period. "Under the Malaysia Agreement, which was concluded on the 9th of July 1963, it was agreed...the State of Singapore would be federated...to form the Federation of Malaysia...A new State Constitution was granted to Singapore to effect this change in status...Malaysia Day which fell on 31st August 1963 to coincide with Merdeka Day was designated as the day in which the new Federation would come into being...deferred this to the 16th of September...On the 31st of August, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew unilaterally declared that 'Singapore shall forever be part of the sovereign, democratic and independent State of Malaysia,' and the island enjoyed an anomalous 15 days of full independence before becoming part of Malaysia...In August 1965, Prime Minister Lee was summoned to Kuala Lumpur and informed of the Tunku's decision to expel Singapore from the Federation and on 9th August 1965, Singapore's independence was proclaimed...the second enactment was the Constitution of Singapore Amendment Act which was passed by the Singapore Parliament on the 22nd of December 1965, retrospective to 9th August 1965...this Act also changed the relevant nomenclatures to bring the Constitution in line with Singapore's independence status." If you'll excuse a reference to a primary source, the speech LKY gave mentioned in the library of congress source in the sentence "On August 31, Lee declared Singapore to be independent with the PAP government to act as trustees for fifteen days until the formation of Malaysia on September 16" was covered by The Strait's Times at the time. It was given at a Malaysia Day ceremony, and was a call for independence through Malaysia rather than independence alone. "We look upon ourselves as trustees for the Federal Government in these 15 days. We will exercise these powers in the interests of Malaysia...There will be no change in the overall power situation or in the policy of Government during this fortnight of prelude to Malaysia...by his agreement to postpone the official date for Malaysia for 15 days...in fifteen days, we will raise officially the new flag of the nation."
Regarding content, it is incorrect and misleading to portray the 15 days as something other than a transition. They were not planned, and had no impact on Singapore's history. All sources place Singapore's independence as occurring in 1965 when it separated from Malaysia, and none credit the 15 day limbo with any significance. I would argue further that the sources treat it as a mere curious factoid, important for its symbolism regarding Malaysia rather than for independence itself. This should be reflected in the prose and the infobox. The initial dispute here is whether or not to note Malaysia as the country Singapore became independent from. I would actually go further and suggest that 31 August 1963 not appear in the infobox, reflecting its consideration as very minor in other sources. CMD (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Folks supporting a first "independence" for Singapore per se", what are your sources and arguments? Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry if I'm abusing the outdent but it seemed logical here. Thanks for the response above CMD! The book I cited above (Tan Tai Yong, Creating "Greater Malaysia") has a long section called "Singapore: Independence through Merger" (pp. 31-48) which makes up roughly half of Chapter 2. Basically, the British wanted to get out of SE Asia, and viewed the federation as their ultimate goal: independence through federation. (Basically meaning they would no longer have to pay for S'pore's defense given that S'pore was self-governing since 1959 (see Swan Sik Ko above) (but did not pay for its own defense). It is admittedly a tricky question... granted the two-week period is in some senses trivial, but being freed from British colonial influence was certainly not. In '57 Marshall resigned as Chief Minister because he could not convince the British government to grant "full internal self government by April 1957". The sticking point was foreign policy and defense. Just a quick citation before returning to reading: "[B]oth Marshall and Lim [ndlr: Chief Ministers 1955-1959] had made repeated overtures to the Tunku, urging him to consider merger with Singapore. To them, this was the only way in which Singapore could realistically convince the British to concede independence to the Colony." (p.35) I think that sentence is what you asked for, Jytdog? SashiRolls (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm. so a couple of nuances of the word "independence" are coming into play here. one is in the sense of "self-determination" (i.e. "independence from X"...not a colony which was a status imposed on it) and the other is "standing on its own". i think everybody agrees that both of these things happened and both are ~kinds~ of independence? Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Right, so what's wrong (technically, I mean) with using the optional "from" parameter for one and not for the other, Lemongirl942?
|sovereignty_type =   <!--Brief description of country/territory's status ("Independence [from...]")

--SashiRolls (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no "from" parameter in Template:Infobox country. What are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
SashiRolls is correct to note that independence through merger was the mantra of the day, but that again points to 16 September as the important date, not 31 August. Regarding nuances of the word independence, Singapore obtained internal self-government in 1959 after some preparation, not 1963. Self-determination is a bit harder, but they had the merger referendum in 1962. The Malaysia Agreement was signed on 9 July 1963 by the Singaporean government (among others), under which they were going to move towards Malaysia. On 31 August 1963, although official merger had been delayed, the constitution of Singapore as a State of Malaysia still kicked in, so for the short period of independence they were governed under the State Constitution noting them as part of Malaysia. Are you really independent if you're legally obliged to cede sovereignty or are only holding sovereignty in trust? Fun questions for alternate historians I suppose. The point is that independence through Malaysia happened on 16 September, not 31 August.
Another consideration which I haven't brought up is that despite its fait accompli mention now, the declaration may not have been legal. It certainly wasn't recognised by the British and Malayan governments at the time, but the dispute never escalated, because, in the end it was for such a short time and didn't change anything that it was inconsequential for Singapore. (Although perhaps it made the Malayan leaders dislike LKY a bit more. Who knows!) CMD (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gonna use the outdent here, sorry.

  1. The 1963 declaration of independence was a unilateral declaration (See quotes attached to refs)[1][2][3] (and it should be stated as such). I am not aware if it was officially recognised by the UK/Malaya. A Newspaper article shows that British and the federal government in Malaya questioned the validity.[4] Another source seems to say that the Federal Government protested while the British ignored the illegality.[5]
  2. By 1963, independence was granted, but only as part of the new Federation of Malaya. After two troubled years, Singapore was expelled and became a fully independent state in 1965.[6] The phrase "fully independent" seems to be used for the 1965 event. In addition, most other sources seem to be only mentioning the 1965 event as the independence day.

The way I see it, the 1963 was a unilateral declaration, not recognised by anyone. 1965 is widely cited as the "full independence" and I would prefer to keep it as the sovereignty type. Basically, my parameters would look like these

|sovereignty_type   = Independence from [[Malaysia]]
|established_event1 = [[Founding of modern Singapore]]
|established_date1  = 6 February 1819
|established_event2 = [[Self-governance of Singapore|Self-government]]
|established_date2  = 3 June 1959
|established_event3 = Unilateral declaration of independence from United Kingdom
|established_date3  = 31 August 1963
|established_event4 = [[Singapore in Malaysia|Merger with Malaysia]]
|established_date4  = 16 September 1963
|established_event5 = [[Singapore in Malaysia#Expulsion|Expulsion from Malaysia]]
|established_date5  = 9 August 1965

References

  1. ^ Mohamad, Kadir. Malaysia-Singapore: Fifty Years of Contentions 1965-2015. p. 32. ISBN 9789839541892. 
  2. ^ Tan, Kevin Y.L (1989). "The Evolution of Singapore's Modern Constitution: Developments from 1945 to the Present Day". Singapore Academy of Law Journal. 1 (1). Malaysia Day which fell on 31st August 1963 (to coincide with Merdeka Day) was designated the day in which the new Federation would come into being. The Malaysian Prime Minister, Tengku Abdul Rahman deferred this to mid - September due to objections by President Sukarno of Indonesia. The latter viewed the merger plan as "a threat to the area and the denial of ethnic and cultural unity." On the 31st of August, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew unilaterally declared that "Singapore shall forever be a part of the sovereign, democratic and independent State of Malaysia" and the island enjoyed an anomalous 15 days of full independence before becoming a part of Malaysia. 
  3. ^ Turnbull, C. M. A History of Modern Singapore, 1819-2005. NUS Press. p. 282. ISBN 9789971694302. 
  4. ^ "SINGAPORE'S CLAIM NOT VALID'". The Straits Times. 4 September 1963. p. 1. 
  5. ^ Drysdale, John. Singapore Struggle for Success. Marshall Cavendish International Asia Pte Ltd. pp. 265–266. ISBN 9789814677677. 
  6. ^ Kong, Lily; Yeoh, Brenda S. A. The Politics of Landscapes in Singapore: Constructions of "nation". Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815629801. 

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for posting this. I've read the report in the Straits Times, and also the comment in John Drysdale's book about the Straits Times

... I must pay tribute to the generally high quality of reporting in The Straits Times, especially, and to the thoroughness of the verbatim reports on the proceedings in successive Singapore legislatures. This does not mean that the newspapers are without bias. Far from it. But if, as in the case of The Straits Times, the bias is consistent and recognizable (support during colonial times for conservative political leaders and for European business interest, for example), this can be allowed for.

I have also been struck by the use of the term "Federation of Malaya." Malaysia, as such, does not seem to have existed prior to Singapore's independence from the UK, right?
My personal "conclusion": I think this could be more thoroughly treated in the article rather than in the infobox, which, in the end is not a place for nuance. The sun can set on the Malaysian Empire in this infobox if we think that's best. Still: wasn't the US Declaration of Independence unilateral too? ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Is this possible?
|sovereignty_type   = Independence from [[United Kingdom]]
|established_event1 = [[Founding of modern Singapore]]
|established_date1  = 6 February 1819
|established_event2 = [[Self-governance of Singapore|Self-government]]
|established_date2  = 3 June 1959
|established_event3 = Unilateral declaration of independence from United Kingdom
|established_date3  = 31 August 1963
|sovereignty_type   = Independence from [[Malaysia]]
|established_event1 = [[Singapore in Malaysia|Merger with Malaysia]]
|established_date1  = 16 September 1963
|established_event2 = [[Singapore in Malaysia#Expulsion|Expulsion from Malaysia]]
|established_date2  = 9 August 1965

SashiRolls (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This Straits Times article is another I found interesting, if anyone else wishes to view it.
I don't think the above formulation is technically possible, but I would like to note again that this infobox places the two moments as equivalent when they were completely different (and reliable sources do not treat them similarly). In Singaporean history, that brief period of history is an interesting footnote, and as such doesn't belong in the infobox. Unlike with the USA example, it's impossible to ascertain if Singapore was even independent. The US of course fought for years, arguably until 1812, to cement their claim, and Singapore's was unrecognised by the UK and Malaya. LKY wasn't trying to declare independence equivalent to that of the US, and it isn't like his actual independence was tested in those two weeks. Malaysia had been set up officially in the months before after all, with LKY a driving force behind it.
SashiRolls, what strikes you about "Federation of Malaya"? CMD (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
That article seems to assert without ambiguity that S'pore had power over its foreign affairs during those two weeks, which means they could have unilaterally chosen not to enter into the former Federation of Malaya, if they didn't want to give up their power over foreign affairs by entering a larger federation to be called Malaysia in two weeks time. But, again, it's The Straits Times in 1963, (cf. say, The Washington Post in 2016 ^^) What would your proposed infobox be, CMD?
What I found confusing was the primary documents at Federation of Malaya (where sometimes it's Federation of Malaysia, Malaysia, Federation of Malaya): wiki-text: "In 1963, the Federation was reconstituted as "Malaysia" when it federated with the British territories of Singapore, Sarawak, and North Borneo; a claim to the latter territory was maintained by the Philippines."[1][2]

References

SashiRolls (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The idea that Singapore could have pulled out of the Malaysia agreement is unsupported. Contrast that article discussing LKY's claims with the article that Lemongirl posted above [3], where the British and Malayan authorities shoot down LKY's assertion of having control of foreign affairs. "Any transfer of powers from the British Government to the Government of Singapore required an Order-in-Council by the Queen, and that no such order had been made".
My preferred infobox would have three dates: 3 June 1959, 16 September 1963, and 9 August 1965. Each of those are moments when Singapore had a status change that led towards it becoming an independent country.
Presumably the context depends on the specific primary document. I've read some debate as to whether Malaysia is an expansion of Malaya, or a whole new country. To my understanding it's mostly seen as a continuation of Malaya with a different name, but of course some argue otherwise. CMD (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Found 2 present-day refs affirming Singapore's independence from UK:
  • "..gained independence from Britain in 1963" - Yahoo.[1]
  • "..propelled Singapore from what was a southeast Asian backwater after independence from Malaysia in 1965 – two years after gaining independence from Britain in 1963 – into one of the world’s most successful economies" - Financial Times.[2]
  • "Singapore became independent, not once, but twice. First, Singapore secured independence from Great Britain after being a colony for over 140 years in 1963, and two years later, became a sovereign unitary state after seceding from the Federation of Malaysia."[3]
Shiok (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ President Tony Tan accepts invitation to Buckingham Palace, Yahoo, 28 March 2014
  2. ^ Singapore tests its success - Financial Times Nov 26, 2014
  3. ^ Kevin YL Tan, Thio Li-ann (2015). Singapore: 50 constitutional moments that defined a nation. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. pp. Chapter 2. ISBN 978-981-4677-09-7. 
  • There is no precedent that I can see for the "sovereignty_type" field to completed with "independence from" something. The field asks simply for the current "sovereignty_type" of the country. In the case of Singapore, it is simply "independent". It will take an RfC to use "independence from" here and the likelihood of that succeeding is about zero. So please just drop that. The rest of the fields should just work back in time from the current status. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I will assume there is consensus and restore the infobox for now, together with citations. Adding one more to list above. Shiok (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Do not assume consensus after such a tangled disagreement; please wait for confirmation that there actually is consensus. I have reverted. But now we have a proposal. Do folks here agree with this proposal? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
There is precedence for the independent from clause, it is the longstanding advice given in the country wikiproject, and that advice used to be followed. (The push for the "Formation" formulation in recent years for many articles is the sort of misleading revisionism that we should avoid.) See India, the oldest and most actively maintained country FA as an example.
Shiok's above addresses a complete strawman, which didn't even touch on my arguments. Sources noting Singapore obtained "independence from the UK in 1963" or a similar formulation don't help either way without context. Singapore unquestionably did become independent from the UK in 1963, if only through merger into Malaysia. "Politically, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) needed the merger to secure its political legitimacy. When the party was voted into power in the 1959 general election, it had campaigned vigorously for Singapore’s independence through merger with Malaysia." It was the union which overcame British objections to an independent Singapore. Blindly taking any sources mentioning 1963 and independence is useless. I mean, look at the very sources quoted! The Yahoo source notes "Singapore gained independence from Britain in 1963 and immediately became part of Malaysia". For it to "immediately" become part of Malaysia, the gaining of independence in question is surely the 16 September date. I can't access the FT source myself, but note that as FT said Singapore did gain independence from the UK in 1963, when it joined Malaysia. As I sourced above, the UK explicitly stated that they did not devolve powers on 31 August. The third source seems even clearer. "Singapore became independent, not once, but twice. First, Singapore secured independence from Great Britain after being a colony for over 140 years in 1963, and two years later, became a sovereign unitary state after seceding from the Federation of Malaysia." The authors explcitly note it became a sovereign state in the second period, not the first. CMD (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Precisely. The sources do not describe when did it obtain independence from Britain, and more specifically, did it become a sovereign state after achieving that Independence? I managed to have a look at the FT source and here's the relevant quote Like many parts of the Asian city-state, Punggol has been transformed by the economic miracle that propelled Singapore from what was a southeast Asian backwater after independence from Malaysia in 1965 – two years after gaining independence from Britain in 1963 – into one of the world’s most successful economies. This doesn't clarify the date of independence from Britain. Essentially, Singapore became independent from Britain by joining the Federation of Malaysia (it did not however achieve a sovereign status at this point). It became an independent sovereign state in 1965 only. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
CMD, firstly most of your arguments do not need responding to as they do not affect the milestones in the infobox providing the big picture. Historians can defer on the details. As for strawman - do recall that initially you disputed whether there is 'Independence from UK' by statements like - "Treating a legal transitional phase as a period of sovereign independence is misleading". The quotes in my refs shows recognition that Singapore 'gained independence twice. You did acknowledge later there was independence from UK, but whether it's the declaration itself or at the merger date does not matter here as these are points of views. In any case "Independent" depicts our nation's current status. Shiok (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to avoid the arguments that's your prerogative. I suppose then that they remain unaddressed and will not repeat them here. I will however take yours in turn.
"Historians can defer on the details." And we as Wikipedians should reflect these deferrals on the details. That's what WP:WEIGHT is about.
"initially you disputed whether there is 'Independence from UK'" This was a point of view which has been sourced above. That Singapore became independent of the UK in 1963 was not the matter under dispute, yet it is the matter your sources discussed, hence the fact they addressed a strawman argument.
"but whether it's the declaration itself or at the merger date does not matter here as these are points of views" As this is the content under discussion, it seems to matter quite a bit. What are you trying to get at there?
"In any case "Independent" depicts our nation's current status." And not a single person has suggested otherwise.
CMD (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
– Infobox is not meant for the details.
– to justify your change of the infobox title, you did initially questioned the entry "Independence from UK" and whether the declaration was recognised.
– that the copious arguments about the date of Singapore's 1963 independence is of little consequence if it does not affect the current infobox entries
So the title will be changed back to 'Independent'. I would add that 'Independence from Malaysia' should replace "expulsion from Malaysia" in the list. Shiok (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're proposing the inclusion of more details than I am. My argument that was our short concise overview should reflect the balance provided by sources which do have space to go into the details (much as our sections summarise our main articles and our leads summarise our bodies despite the former being much smaller than the latter in all cases).
- Yes, I noted these things based on the sources provided, as I discussed above.
- Currently there is nothing on the infobox, but again, you're the one insisting on two 1963 dates. If you don't wish to, then yes, the arguments are of little consequence. If you wish to maintain this position, then the arguments about that position are relevant.
- Independence from Malaysia covers the sovereignty_type (status) and the sovereignty_note (origin of status). The expulsion is the event that generated that status. CMD (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's mainly been an issue with the section title. I'm agreeable with your last [bold edit] that removed Formation and the event of "Temasek - c.1299". But the proposed change should simply have the sovereign type as 'Independent' proposed by Jytdog. There's consensus of 3 (incl Wrigleygum) to 2 (yourself and lemongirl) for this. As for the '31 Aug 1963' entry, we can change it to "Independence from UK (Declaration)". Shiok (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, it is a determination on the balance of arguments in the discussion. I remind you that you have deliberately avoided engaging in those. You've also failed to find any sources that demonstrate 31 Aug 1963 as being a very important event, and I have failed to find any myself (while finding quite a few which find it so irrelevant as to not be worth mentioning). As for the title, you propose a change that removes some information, but in the course of avoiding discussions haven't stated why you want to do so. CMD (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yikes wall of text.... But per the Malaysia Agreement, and the Malaysia Act[4], it states For the purpose of enabling North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as “the new STATES”) to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as “the Federation”), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”) Her Majesty’s sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States. Sovereignty transferred from the British to the Federation of Malaysia. I.t. There's no arguement whether Sarawak and North Borneo were ever independent, sovereign COUNTRIES for this transfer, so not sure what the confusion is.... PS: I am adding one small bit of write-up just to state that it became a sovereign state after the expulsion. Else it sounds incomplete. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
And I'm trying not to add to this wall of irrelevant discussions. Please give your input see if we can end this sooner, starting with the main issue - the infobox section title. My proposed version is the same as CMD's last bold edit except that he wants "Independence from Malaysia" as the title. My point is that since Singapore has two independences - from UK (140 years) and Msia (2 years) - the title should not reflect one over the other. Previously, my preference was 'Independences' to reflect the process, but Jytdog says it should be 'Independent' as the original intent of 'Soveriegn_type', which I now accept. What do you say? Shiok (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
They're not irrelevant, despite your refusal to engage with them. Zhanzhao's quote is directly relevant to what happened in 1963, which I remind you is another point of discussion. Singapore has also become independent from Johor and Japan, if you want to stretch that argument further. However, it remains that the most significant separation was the one which left Singapore a sovereign independent state. CMD (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to his posting but most of the rest. Actually I thought @Zhanzhao: was refuting you, so I asked for his comments on the Infobox section title as well. An official gov.uk source is of course important so we can wait for his response on its context for the infobox. Shiok (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
As I only saw this quite late in the discussion, I'm not even sure who is on what side now. But this is my personal opinion, I think its fine to just stick with just Independence, per Austria. Maybe like Hong Kong's infobox, Transfer of Soverignty from UK to Malaysia'' or Macau. The info-headers in all 3 are left simple without descriptors, letting the wiki-linked bulletpoints say all that needs to be said. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so that will be 4 editors preferring Independent(Jytdg) or independence(Zhanzhao,Wrigleygum) - I am agreeable with either term. If there is no other editor commenting (@Sashirolls:?), I will restore the infobox from this to this according. Yes simple is better, we can continue to discuss bulletpoints if needed. Shiok (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please don't assume consensus. It's not a vote! The reason why Austria only has independence is because it was occupied by multiple countries. The scenario in Singapore is different - it was not occupied by different countries, it was only part of 1 country. In this case, there is no reason why independence from Malaysia cannot be mentioned. It should also be noticed that the word "Independence" in Austria is wikilinked to Austrian State Treaty - which was the most recent incident establishing the sovereign state. In Singapore's case the most recent incident resulting in a sovereign state was independence from Malaysia. (Hong Kong is not a country, so we can't really compare). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

Given Shiok has explicitly refused to engage with my points, I am unsure where to go from here. Would WP:DRN make sense? CMD (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do so. I have explained that most of the discussion is simply irrelevant to the infobox. At least DRN can provide a firm outcome. Shiok (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Done, although I am not intimately familiar with the process. Everyone who wishes should chip in on the initial filing post at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty. CMD (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Singapore[edit]

We need to add one sentence about the Capital punishment in Singapore. It has attracted the attention of the media as well as the Local and International activist groups [[5]]. It seems serious issue. Saudi2828 (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

Hi! Recently I've checked the article Names of Singapore then I saw the etymology section of Singapore article, I thought I'd include the information that the root could be traced back to Tamil. Well, my edit was reverted back. Now I would like to make sure which one is the correct one. In my view the Tamil seems to be more plausible, however, Singam is in my view a tamilisied version of Sanskrit word Simha. --Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ talk 12:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Luigi Boy. Do you have sources that have looked at this possibility? CMD (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thx for reply. Well, unfortunately I don't have any, but if we take the history of Singapore then it seems for me a little bit logic that the word came from Tamil rather than from Sanskrit. I mean the Chola king wasn't a northern one, so I don't get the point why he should name a place by Sanskrit words. Hence, I'll try to research this problem. --Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ talk 12:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Luigi Boy: It seems like original research, and unsupported by sources. The original source say Sanskrit. I'll revert the edit back to the original state. Hzh (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hzh: Ah thx for the info I've only checked the change aftermath. Then it seems clear to me. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ talk 18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Luigi Boy (talk · contribs) The Chola kings conversed in Tamil, but used Sanskrit as a liturgical language. Both languages existed in parallel in the Chola realms, just for different purposes (eg: Tamil for conversational and ritualistic purposes, Sanskrit for more liturgical purposes/place names). This source explains more. In addition, the origin of 'Singapura' is credited to Sang Nila Utama, not the Cholas. As Sang Nila Utama named the city in Sanskritised Malay, Sanskrit is credited as the origin of the name. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Tamil[edit]

please change ((Tamil)) to ((Tamil language|Tamil)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:C70:41A0:EAB7:4FB4:60A8 (talkcontribs)

Yes check.svg Done Kleuske (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: It was not as simple as Kleuske said. Its not clear where exactly you want the change. However I made some copyedits which included the linking in the lead section, but was reverted to an earlier "stable" version by Lemongirl942. I made the edits again with reasonable edit summaries. In future please be precise of the changes you want to be made and make sure to sign on the talkpage. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 11:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I changed Tamil to Tamil language where the text referenced language. You're right, it wasn't specified exactly. I assumed the article to be stable and that the request was made in good faith (no reason to assume otherwise). Other editors are (of course) welcome to rectify any and all mistakes I may have made or left in the text. Kleuske (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted to an older version and didn't realise that some of the changes were outside the etymology section. Apologies for that. Essentially I reverted this set of POV edits. Kleuske's edits were on top of these edits, so when I reverted they became moot. A part of DRAGON BOOSTER's edits were also to this section, but I missed the other edits. Sorry for that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to apologize. If there is POV content, it needs to be reverted ruthlessly. Thanks for that. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Kleuske: I was explaining the IP, how to make a complete edit request and the effort (sometimes) the editors take to answer a five word edit request. I also left a talkback because the Ip's trying to contribute to wikipedia. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 15:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC).
Hello Lemongirl942: Don`t worry about that. I would have done the same. I was just describing what happened with a note to the IP, that is all. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC).


Official Scripts[edit]

Should Jawi be included in the infobox? According to this, the Chinese, Tamil, and Jawi scripts are the three 'ethnic characters' that are sanctioned for use on the IC. This popular meme is proof of it. Is this enough for Jawi to be counted as an official script? Tiger7253 (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. The constitution itself explicitly calls for "Malay language...in the Roman script". That said, it may be worth mentioning in the text that it is allowed. We actually don't mention scripts outside the infobox at all, and our infobox info on scripts is uncited. The constitution doesn't to my knowledge mention Chinese or Tamil scripts. Our article on Simplified Chinese characters says without source that traditional Chinese can be used on IC cards as well. This raises the question of what happens to the non-Tamil Indians, although perhaps they simply write in Tamil script as well. CMD (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@CMD: Non-Tamil Indian Singaporeans write in their own scripts. Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu were added to the school curriculum in the 90's. As for Jawi, I think it'd be worth putting a note in the infobox that Jawi is an additional script for documentation purposes. Tiger7253 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That source says nothing about scripts, although I'm not arguing they don't do so for their Mother Tongue studies. However, this does not mean they use that script on their IC card.
We have evidence that Jawi can be used for one document. That hardly seems significant enough for such prominent mention, especially given the paucity of sources which discuss it. CMD (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Singapore with the better condition of 2016[edit]

I think that Singapore wins acquiring Norway, but the Government Programme is on progress. KaplanAL (talk) 1309, 29 January 2017 (SST) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Racism against atheists and nones[edit]

18,4 % are non-religious. The "other" term is about other smaller religions not about atheists. Religious people don't respect us; especially my mother! =/ Some theists claim we shouldn't mention the non-religious people because their opinion about religion isn't important. In statistics we record data. If there is a data you have to reveal it! That's what I tell to my mother but she doesn't respect me as a different thinker and a PERSON! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4101:A00:84AC:9D7D:30D:9E4E (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Capital Punishment in the Lede[edit]

I have removed the paragraph about capital punishment in the lede, which was added by Spacecowboy420 in this edit, as it is not ledeworthy.

These are the reasons:

  • Some editors consider human rights a serious issue, but this view is a subjective one. If it is to be added in such a noteworthy place like the lede, consensus must first be achieved.
  • Next, this is only a single statistic, which is almost twenty years old. There are plenty of other statistics like demographics, economics which are more recent and more relevant. It is fine to include this in the lede if it is currently occurring (such as the comment about the PAP government in power from 1959 to present), but not if it occurred twenty years in the past.
  • This is not a notable issue. The only other issues referencing the past in the lede are referring to sovereignty: Singapore's founding, World War II and obtaining independence.

I will assume good faith that Spacecowboy420, who inserted this, does not have political reasons for doing so. However, it is not relevant and I have removed it. --Terrancommander (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with removing this. The bigger problem with this is not that it is old, but that it seems to be giving undue weight to one particular article by William Gibson. This doesn't belong in the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore's Infobox Sovereignty section changes[edit]

Hi there has been a WP:Dispute Resolution process on the above for the last 3 weeks. It is in the final stages with no objections in the past week to proposed changes :

Independent
  • British colonisation: 6 February 1819
  • Self-government: 3 June 1959
  • Independence from the UK (by Declaration): 31 August 1963 [1][2]
  • Formation of Malaysia: 16 September 1963
  • Separation from Malaysia: 9 August 1965 [3]

Any new editors can participate in the [DRN discussions here] and you are welcome to state your views. I will be posting the changes shortly if there are no further comments at DRN. Thanks. Shiok (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore's Declaration of Independence (31 August 1963) - Notes[edit]

British High Commissioner, Singapore - Antony Phillipson:
  • "On 9th August 2015 Singapore will celebrate 50 years as an independent nation [..] But a key moment in the journey to the events of 1965 came on 31st August 1963, 50 years ago today, when Singapore declared its independence from the United Kingdom." (published 31 August 2013) [4]
  • "Last September I wrote an article for Lianhe Zaobao on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of a key moment in Singapore’s path to independence, its separation from the UK in 1963.
I wrote then that "50 years on from Singapore’s declaration of independence from the UK the relationship between us is both strong and deep. The ties that bind us now are those of friendship, partnership and respect; and they provide a platform on which we can work together for mutual benefit, for the good of all our people, in the years to come."[5]

References

I understand that you want to declare this resolved, but I looked at the archived discussion, where the moderator gave up, and re-opened DRN and there is no consensus yet. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution still needed?[edit]

Hi all,

I noticed there is an open DRN thread about the info box, and was wondering if this still needs assistance to be resolved? Please let me know on my talk page if it is, thanks. Steven Crossin 14:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)