Talk:Singapore/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

"Third on Corruptions Perception index" vs "third least-corrupt country"

So which do people think is easier to understand? 183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've edited it to hopefully make it more clear but saying it's the third least corrupt is activley misleading as it's based on a measure of percived corruption rather than an investigation of actual corruption. Unlike other metrics such as Life expectancy or GDP per capita,"Corruption" is hard to define and create a metric for because it's both hidden and hard to define with various border cases being different in different countries.Zubin12 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Better but still not ideal. I would still pause to take in that word combination using “lowest”. How about "third best country on Corruptions Perceptions Index".183.90.36.118 (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise there was a discussion here. I have changed it to "third on Corruption Perceptions Index". Zubin12 is correct about the fact that saying "third least corrupt" is misleading. However, since we already have an article on Corruption Perceptions Index, the easiest way to state this is to simply quote the rank and link to the index.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This point wasn't covered in my review. I would have this placed in the economy section of the body as well. robertsky (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"third on Corruption Perceptions Index" is as vague as the first version. You need to say "third best on Corruption Perceptions Index", people don't know whether a high or low rank equates to best/worst. Was it deliberate? 183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't use expressions like "third best" or "third worse" since these represent an oversimplification of a much more nuanced ranking. Many rankings also cannot be classified into clear "best" or "worse" categories. If the ranking is available, we simply state the position and link to the ranking, letting the user figure this out themselves--DreamLinker (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Who is "We"? - it is you and your nuanced vague description. Almost every media describe it as least-corrupt because it is understandable to the layman. Perception is explained as the methodology of survey. You should take your nonsense to third party opinion or the grammar noticeboard and get feedback. Then we discuss your nuances again.183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please be civil in your replies. Not every media describes it as "least corrupt" and Wikipedia is clearly supposed to favour accuracy over presenting inaccurate views simply because it is "understandable to the layman". You assertion is also not supported since most news sources actually state the ranking/score and index instead of putting qualifiers like "best" or "worst" [1], [2], [3], [4].--DreamLinker (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So who is "We". I said "least-corrupt" is normally used, not best/worst. Selected refs does nothing for your story if people don’t read the details. If you want to put a single line summary, it better not be vague. Just put up your "Third on Corruptions Perception Index" at a noticeboard if you think you are right. Then we meet there.183.90.36.118 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"We" is usually used in context of Wikipedia editors and I used it because what I said reflects the current consensus view. As for "people don’t read the details", that's your own perception. Anyway, if you want to use "least corrupt" please bring some references to show that it is widely used. Alternatively, we can simply remove it from the lead (which is probably best) and explain in one of the sections.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Third on Corruptions Perception Index" - these are your own rewrites, a claimed "consensus view" that is only by yourself. I do not see anyone coming in to support your vague deceptive summary. You know of course many readers who are new to the index may interpret it as the third most corrupt country. So your perverted refusal to acknowledge this vagueness in your next response will be reflective of other malicious content edits too. -183.90.37.104 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

DreamLinker - Still refusing to answer here. It affects your credibility, or are you more afraid of being called out? 183.90.36.137 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

IMF GDP data

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.

---

I know some of you can't read sources (seriously, PAP socks need better skills, I thought you were highly educated?), so I helpfully included a link to GDP per capita with IMF data from 2017 to 2024: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2019/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2017&ey=2024&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=60&pr1.y=11&c=137%2C516%2C453%2C576%2C178&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a= Singapore is not due to overtake Luxembourg until 2023 according to IMF estimates. Yny501 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You are already discussing on his talk page, there's no need to throw shades at everyone here. Did you think you can agitate us to edit-war at HK article as well? Good luck to your street protests la.183.90.37.104 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

When did I bring up the HK article? Calm down, you're the one who's accusing people of things they're not doing. How many warnings do you need before it's enough? Your attitude to this article is basically let's see how much I can get away with, and that's not my problem, unless you're just making blatantly false edits. Yny501 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

God, Hongkongers truly are a sensitive bunch. Feinoa (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The above statement is almost as ironic as the purchasing patterns of Chinese consumers. Also, it's really not anyone else's problem if you happen to be illiterate, but the PAP should be spending less on their online security budget. Yny501 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

183.90.37.104, Feinoa, Yny501: Seriously, just stop comparing each other to things you don’t like. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 22:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother anyway. If you disagree with them, you will always be labeled as a shill. That's the only thing that they can come up with. Feinoa (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2019 (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.

Trying to understand what was the reason to change GDP to '2nd rank' in the first place? 183.90.36.137 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You can dig through the history of the page and pinpoint who's the one who inserted the line, check out the edit comment if you are interested. At this point, there's no point dredging this out as a discussion. Once again, WP:NOTFORUM. robertsky (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Education section

I was looking at the education section and I believe it needs an overhaul. Some information that should be included are

• Overview of the system - primary, secondary and tertiary institutions (this is somewhat adequately explained in the section). Examinations can be included here.
• Some information about educational policies such as the mother tongue requirement, government funding of schools, ministry for overlooking education. Additionally it would be good to include how much percentage of GDP is spent on education, particularly if that is a significant factor over the years.
• School enrolment rate or some statistics which can be explained in a sentence. It could be explained via a chart as well.
• Praise/Criticism - Currently the OECD PISA and TISS rankings are mentioned, but the statistics are for a single year which kind of makes it more like a news, rather than a summary. For this, a source which could summarise the performance over the years would be preferable. I found some though most are behind a pay-wall. I have removed the content about the (now discontinued) Angus Ross Prize as it is not a major benchmark used globally. Similarly for the IB scores, it is a one time news but not a benchmark as such. The section is also missing any criticism about ability based streaming or stress due to the education system (better reference than AFP news required though).

References

--DreamLinker (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article appears stable. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Article appears to appropriately use sources - there is no obvious evidence of original research. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Appears to be factual and neutral. Any unusual claims, such as "The Singaporean military is arguably the most technologically advanced in Southeast Asia" are backed up by reliable sources - though some, such as this one, using a source from 2010, may need updating. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Images are all appropriately tagged and usable. SilkTork (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Query

• There is an appropriate reference section, but there are a number of Harv errors indicated. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• There are a lot of images creating image clutter, and sometimes squeezing text between images - see MOS:IMAGES for guidelines omn use and placement of images. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SilkTork what's your browser's max width? I want to emulate to see how the clutter looks like to you. robertsky (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky My browser size is 1280 x 657. This MOS:SANDWICHING happens in a number of places, such as Merger with Malaysia, Foreign relations, Military, and Culture. SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork thanks. will check on this again. It will definitely be different from my current 1920 x 1080. robertsky (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• A number of images have long captions, the content of which would be better used in the main body. See WP:CAPTION. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Prose works, but tends to journalese, informality, and could be more concise. There tends, such as the opening sentences, to be an accumulation of detail crudely presented which is not inviting to read, and is therefore counter-productive in conveying the information. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• On a quick look, the major aspects appear to be covered, though more research would need to be done. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have in mind any specific area which requires reasearch? 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

1.02 editor - the research I mean is me doing some background reading on the topic. This is what I do for all GA reviews. It's my standard approach. If you wish to help out on that, that would be useful. I'll look at other encyclopedia entries on SIngapore. Put "Singapore" in to Google and see what comes up, including news items. And sometimes get a book or two out of the library. The amount of research depends on the complexity and importance of the topic. SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• While there is no section that appears obviously excesses, some sections appear to be disproportionately larger than others - such as Water supply and sanitation containing more information than Tourism. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• References to Singapore Statutes need to be checked as the URL structure for AGO's Singapore Statutes Online was changed sometime 2-3 years ago. If possible, make use of {{Singapore legislation}} to ensure that the links stay updated. robertsky (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky Would you be able to do that? SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork yup. working on that, but putting here so that if anyone else wants to edit, they can do it too. robertsky (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any updates? Feinoa (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of this, but the Proposed Decisions have been posted in the Fram ArbCom case, just when my personal life is also somewhat unexpectedly busy, so I'm putting that as the priority at the moment. But I will get back to this as soon as possible. SilkTork (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem! Feinoa (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Putting stability under a query as the article had to be fully protected, and was only unprotected a few days ago. SilkTork (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Cite needed tags have been dealt with, though I had to add a new one. I'll check out sources as I read through the article. SilkTork (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Density and presentation of image media is still a problem. Because of the size of the sections, unless there is a compelling reason for more, I suggest selecting just one image; and, to give a tidy appearance, to place that image on the right side of the article - at the top of the section if possible, otherwise close to the text to which the image refers, unless that means the image is so close to the bottom of the section that it spills over into the next section. I have collapsed the weather box as that is media rich and distracting, yet not everyone requ that information. Collapsing the box is not a GA requirement, so it can be reversed if this is considered inappropriate. SilkTork (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork I have noticed that some articles sidestep the text-squeeze and section-overflow issue by using galleries and montages, like India. And we do have a gallery here to highlighreligious diversity - in some areas and roads on the island, we have all three in close proximity. Shiok (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Galleries can be contentious, and while not explicitly forbidden, are not quite encouragp either: WP:GALLERY. WP:Layout, which is part of the GA criteria, does have MOS:LAYIM which says "you can use a gallery", so that would be a way forward for those sections which would benefit from having several images, but where there is insufficient space. Other than the religious section, where I feel the present gallery works effectively, which sections do you feel would benefit from a gallery? SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would highly discourage the use of any gallery in an overview article as it brings unbalance to section and breaks format as per WP:GALLERY and WP:UNDUE. What in meant by format change....is that in mobile view the images would not be seen till section end....that would be different from all other sections...in desk to view it may cause the whole article to need the use of sidescroll for some people MOS:ACCIM. The norm in country articles is not to have stand-alone galleries.... instead images associated with the text are placed adjacent to the text as per Mos recommendations. Examples to follow are Canada, Australia and Chad. Japan has a few buildings as per a long talk based on the fact a chart would have been meaningless. As for the format at India it is a current change that is being debated with the main concern being mini size images that are not accessible and do not meet the threshold size for visibility for all. Would be hard pressed to fine a gallery in watched over country articles. As for the gallery section here....in my view....religion is not represented well by architecture.--Moxy 🍁 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Religion is the main section I am concern about for a gallery and not thought of others. I am glad you think the present gallery works effectively. The most relevant part of WP:Gallery to me is this: "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images..". Social harmony is important in Singapore, so these images together in a small gallery will reinforce that message. Some readers may not even know how a Buddhist temple and Islamic mosque looks like and these will help. The section text is short and I do not see much difference when it appears at the end of the section on mobiles.

Concerning India's feature article I mentioned, it is due to appear just next week (Oct 2). There is no current debate about its montage image format on their talk page at all. SilkTork, are you more or less finished with the body text? Shiok (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've not yet had a chance to sit down with the revised article, read it thoroughly and compare it with specific and general sources. I hope to do that over the next few days now my schedule is a bit freer on Wikipedia, though I am still a little stretched in real life. Like you I was a little surprised that India is to appear as a featured article considering its poor state - the appearance alerts one to the possibility the article is similarly messy, and it is. The lead fails to appropriately summarise the contents of the article, spending most of its time on history, trying to cram everything else about India in a small paragraph. There is nothing in the lead about agriculture, indeed, very little in the article itself, despite agriculture employing half of India's workforce - there is more about agriculture in an image caption that there in the main body of the article. There is nothing about incense. There is nothing about tourism. There are mistakes early on - the lead sentence of the second paragraph says: "Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago" - though humans had likely been arriving in India from 70,000 years ago or more. The "no later than" phrase is unclear, usually indicating a point in the future rather than one in the past, and "from Africa" is also unclear, and not needed anyway for a sentence in the lead. The overlarge, coloured, and over-captioned images are squeezing text and pushing into following sections. There are too many tertiary sources. There are a number of broken or unused cites. I've only glanced at it, and I don't see it as being of GA standard in its current state, let alone FA. However, that is not my concern. I do not have the time to get involved in that. I wish instead to focus on this GA, and help you folks bring this article to an acceptable standard. The appearance is a quick and easy aspect of that. A tidy, uncluttered and professional appearance is important in both encouraging people to read and reassuring them that the textual content will be similarly well organised and tidy. SilkTork (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That sounds insightful, hopefully they can make some corrections. I had drafted the following response earlier for comments above, but will post it here since you are the reviewer.

I do not see the 20 buildings mentioned, unless we count those with even a hint of one structure in the background. Cities are mainly built-up areas and Singapore island especially is almost all urban with the exception of the surrounding islands, so some images with them are difficult to avoid. The stand-alone buildings are:

* a 3-photo montage of the city skyline - Economy

* Istana - Government

* SAFTI Military Institute - Defense

* Ministry of Communications, in charge of IT, media, arts - Infrastructure

* SMU University - Education

* NUH Hospital - Healthcare

* National Gallery - Arts

* Jewel Changi - Tourism

Of these, the 3-photo skyline montage was already reduced from a 7-photo montage someone posted, if need be could be reduced to just one. A few can possibly be replaced, like NUH hospital, Ministry of Communications, university, but may be hard-pressed to find another representation for those sections.

The religious gallery are buildings course, but many will see them as places of worship and religion, not regular office buildings. I am certainly not ignoring MOS, but it does provide for exceptions and hopefully acceptable here. There is always a chance the recent events may recur, maybe just to hinder the review, so I hope you will not be deterred. Shiok (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your free to ignorer the MOS and other recommendations but most will see an unbalanced ...to our readers the most important aspect of the article will be buildings. Not people or culture but buildings as there are 20 of them in the article...sure we need 3 more in a gallery? .."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article". I dont see how segregation of buildings represents "Social harmony" in fact it shows the opposite. --Moxy 🍁 11:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Tourism section - (copied from talk) it would be good to fix the tourism section first. It reads like an assortment of random facts and describes some specific tourist attractions, instead of tourism in general. Some of the information that could be expected from a tourism section are (1) contribution of tourism to employment/economy, (2) major steps taken to promote tourism (Ministry of Tourism and Merlion) (3) reasons why tourists visit (central location, good air connectivity, duty free shopping) (4) major tourist profile (China, India, ASEAN) and (5) briefly list important tourist attractions.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Fail

• Has a number of citation needed tags, including from November 2016. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Tags have been dealt with. I'll continue working on the review. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• This appears on first glance to be a quick fail due to there being a number of citation needed tags, some dating from November 2016; also the presentation is very untidy with too much media. However, the article is reasonably readable, and appears to be organised and detailed, so there is the possibility that this could be turned into a Good Article with a decent and committed scrub up. I'll continue to make some quick observations. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Currently, the article isn't stable due to edit warring, so quick fail for now. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Every day, two new restaurants open in Singapore." This is sloppy journalistic writing. The data on which this tidbit comes from is seven years old, and is based on an annual figure so giving just the media headline is inaccurate and misleading. Do two restaurants open every day? No, of course not. The source says 686 restaurants opened in 2012, so two a day is just an average. However, the source also says 537 closed, so the total number of new restaurants is 149. That in itself is an impressive figure so it doesn't need to be artificially pumped up. However, as the data is seven years old, it would be more appropriate to get a recent number, and one which looked at an overall trend, not just a single year. SilkTork (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

On hold

I haven't given the article an in-depth review, but I think there is potential here for this article to be made into a Good Article. However, before an in-depth review can be conducted, the obvious problems of the "citation needed" tags, and the image clutter need to be addressed. So I am putting this on hold for seven days for those matters to be dealt with before continuing the review. If the citation and image issues are addressed within seven days I will complete the review to see what else needs doing. SilkTork (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps best to fail and start again once the problems below are delt with. We clearly have some problems that can't be solved without intervention despite what the majority is saying.--Moxy 🍁 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for delay - the Fram case took up a lot of my time and energy. Now it is over I'll take a look again at this article. I recall when I first looked that it appeared to be a quick fail, but that beneath the off-putting appearance there appeared to be a reasonably solid article that could be worked into shape. I am aware that in the month since I put this on hold that the article has had as many edits as it has had in the previous 12 months, and that some edit warring took place. Such instability is also grounds for quick fail, but if we can look into the reason for that, and deal with it then hopefully it won't occur again. SilkTork (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am extending the hold for one month, after which I will look again and make a decision as to if the review can continue, or if there is too much instability. I will look again on or around Nov 5th. Please use the time to build the whole article rather than worrying about the lead. If the main body of the article is fine, the lead will; fall into place. The lead is always the last thing I look at as that is the area that is most likely to change during a review. SilkTork (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, I totally agree that it is important to fix the sections first. I was initially an observer, but I would be happy to actively contribute to this; though I am not sure if the timeline is adequate. Is there a fixed deadline for a GA review?--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the reviewer. I am particularly patient, and am comfortable keeping a review open for months if need be. As long as progress is being made, and folks are still happy for the review to remain open I have no problems at all. This hold is because there is disagreement about the lead. You can work on the article, and safely ignore the lead. As with a number of other experienced GA reviewers, I leave serious consideration of the lead to the end, as the lead will likely change as the article itself develops during a review. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't trust you one bit. And you have avoided visiting the talk page and answering questions I posed to you for days, right at the page bottom.

"Third on Corruptions Perception Index" - these are your own rewrites, a claimed "consensus view" that is only by yourself. I do not see anyone coming in to support your vague deceptive summary. You know of course many readers who are new to the index may interpret it as the third most corrupt country. So your perverted refusal to acknowledge this vagueness in your next response will be reflective of other malicious content edits too. "

I suggest everyone watch all his edits carefully, not only on Singapore article.183.90.37.104 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@183.90.37.104: Please note that Silktork is currently reviewing the article for GA status and in many cases reviewers will be bold and make some changes where they deem necessary. Please also assume good faith in other editors unless they have been proven to be disruptive editors. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussions regarding general editing of the article and debate between editors is best done on the talkpage rather than here in the review. The statement " you have avoided visiting the talk page and answering questions I posed to you for days, right at the page bottom" is inaccurate as DreamLinker responded to every comment made by 183.90.37.104 apart from the last one. The tone of 183.90.37.104's language is hostile and insulting, and is not conducive to a positive collaborative atmosphere. SilkTork (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Copying this here as I want this to be a part of the GA review record:

I don't wish to get involved too much in the editorial decisions in building this article. Reviewers should remain neutral. What I will be looking for in the lead is an overview of Singapore, summarising the main points raised in the article, as per WP:Lead. There shouldn't be a statement in the lead that is not also in the main body (such as " classified as an Alpha+ global city"). There shouldn't be a section in the article that is not summarised in the lead. Working on the lead separately from the main body is not often the best way of doing things. Write the article. Make sure the article is fine, then use the main body of the article to create your lead.

What I will also be looking at is that there is broad coverage in the article - so there should be information on education and healthcare. Perceptions such as quality of life, and personal safety are additional pieces of information not always found in a GA article on settlements, and while they can and should be included if such perceptions are shown to be widely reported such that they are a common feature on discussions about the settlement, they are not required pieces of information. It is known as a major trading centre, so I would expect some mention of that in the main body, along with an explanation of why it is such a world leader, with a summary both of the fact and the reason in the lead. I would expect an indication in the article and so therefore in the lead of the government's control and influence on Singapore's financial development. I will also be looking that the article stays focussed, so a lot of detail or weight on a particular aspect I will question. I would, for example, question a paragraph that sets out to insist on Singapore's "influence" with a string of features, particularly when this assertion of influence is both uncited and not discussed (and it appears not even mentioned) in the main body. I will be looking out for examples of original research where statements are made which are not directly found in sources, but which are arrived at by editors' own interpretation of facts. The facts may be true. But if they are not explicitly stated in sources, then we should not be saying them. Do we have a source for Singapore's "influence on the global economy"? I will be looking at balance to ensure the article is neutral. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't expect to see a series of positive statements, but alert and inquiring readers may get concerned to read long sections of high praise without accompanying balance, such as concerns about falling GDP. Am I missing in the article information about the fall in GDP in Singapore: [5], [6], [7]? Is this information in the article and I'm not seeing it?

My suggestion to folks working to improve the article is to concentrate on getting the main body right first, then work on the lead. It's easier and more effective that way, and tends to be less confrontational as well! SilkTork (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing

I am closing this GAN as not listed. The article remains unstable, and so the review cannot continue. SilkTork (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

GAN closed as Not Listed

I've closed the GA review as the article remains unstable. Once there is stability on the article and main contributors feel that the article is ready, I'll be happy to review it. So you can ping me, rather than have it wait on the nominations list for ages. SilkTork (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

Please decapitalize "Bumboats" and add a link to the bumboat article. 96.75.222.117 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

"The country is situated one degree (137 kilometres or 85 miles) north of the equator"

Part of the country is situated 137 kilometres or 85 miles north of the equator, but since it's 725 km2 in area and it's not a long and narrow line, most of the country isn't 137 km or 85 mi north. "One degree" is approximate of course, unlike the km/mi distance. Could you just remove the km/mi figures? The coordinates appear elsewhere, like in the infobox, but the km/mi doesn't appear anywhere else, so it shouldn't be in the introduction anyway. 2601:5C6:8080:100:8950:4BE9:11F3:586F (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Partially done. I've changed "one degree" to "about one degree", in recognition of it not occupying a just thin line. I've left the km/mi note as being helpful to those readers who don't know how far 1° is on Earth. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

There have been a lot of improvements, but still some issues with verifiability including missing citations and books without page numbers (e.g. Savage, Victor R.; Yeoh, Brenda S.A. (2004). Toponymics: A Study of Singapore's Street Names. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.; Khun Eng Kuah (2009). State, society, and religious engineering: toward a reformist Buddhism in Singapore; Ammon, Ulrich; Dittmar, Norbert; Mattheier, Klaus J. (2006). Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society; Singapore, Curriculum Planning & Development Division (2015). Singapore : the making of a nation-state 1300–1975.; Lee Tong Soon (2008). "Singapore".; Kong, Lily (2007). Singapore Hawker Centres : People, Places, Food. Singapore: SNP). Without page numbers it is very difficult to find the information failing WP:V. buidhe 03:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2020

20 January 2020

Palak Baid (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Armanaziz (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The article seems to be in pretty good shape - only a few areas need improvement. I'll try to highlight the weak areas one by one so that someone can work on them.

• My first observation is - the last paragraph of the section 2.6 Republic of Singapore needs copy-edit. Also the last sentence has a citation required tag.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• There is another citation required tag in the first paragraph of the section Geography.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the Transports section has some outdated data which need to be updated.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Another citation required tag in the Arts section.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please address these. Arman (Talk) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

While the citation situation is now fixed, the copy-edit concern for section 2.6 has not been addressed adequately. For example:

• "Lee Hsien Loong's tenure included the 2008 global financial crisis, the resolution of a dispute over Malayan railways land, and the introduction of integrated resorts." - this sentence needs to be rewritten and possibly broken down to be meaningful to a reader who is not familiar with the last two issues.
• "On 23 March 2015, Lee Kuan Yew died, declaring a one-week period of public mourning." - sounds like Lee Kuan Yew himself declared the public mourning.

Arman ^(Talk) 13:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've made some changes, hopefully it's better now. Feinoa (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• • The concerns from the earlier review now seem to be addressed. The coverage has increased, referencing improved and the article seems reasonably stable. Based on my assessment I am promoting this article. Arman ^(Talk) 06:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Further comments

@Armanaziz: I appreciate that you tried to review this article. However, I don't believe this article satisfies the criteria for a good article. If you notice the previous comments in GA review 3, there were multiple issues which have not been addressed. Many sections require copy editing. Some information in the lead is not there in the body. There is a lot of undue information as well it has issues with balancing information (mundane factoids are given greater province than encyclopedic information).--DreamLinker (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@DreamLinker:, fair points. You seem to have a more stringent standard for GA in mind than I do, and frankly I am rather new at GA assessment. So please feel free to nominate the article for GA reassessment and highlight your specific concerns so that the editors can work on them. I'd be happy to contribute in any way beneficial.-- Arman ^(Talk) 04:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

LEAD section dispute

@Feinoa - that's not why someone should revert a contribution by another editor. There's no such thing as a stable version if the preceding edit wasn't a case of vandalism. If @DreamLinker had made a mistake with regards to the Marina Bay Sands, you should correct it based on its merits or reverted the affecting sentence alone, not undo his entire edit completely. Otherwise, discuss the entire section in the Talkpage. The article does not belong to any one contributor, no matter how much they have written it or promoted it to Good Article status. Just because it has achieved GA/FA does not mean it has reached perfection and thereupon destined to remain static. Please undo your revert willingly and discuss the dispute here. Seloloving (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Need to include one Pew Research which says Singapore has "highest religious diversity"?

Highest religious diversity

@Feinoa: I am not sure why we need to include this pew research study as you are including here [8]. I have already stated that Singapore is culturally and religiously diverse and there are multiple sources mentioning this. As for this Pew Research which measures "religious diversity", this is the methodology

This study, however, takes a relatively straightforward approach to religious diversity. It looks at the percentage of each country’s population that belongs to eight major religious groups, as of 2010. The closer a country comes to having equal shares of the eight groups, the higher its score on a 10-point Religious Diversity Index.

This is a pointless index to include.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC) I also don't see a need to include in the lead where it is redundant. I understand that you feel the article is "dull" but that is how most encyclopaedic articles are, factual, summary style and to the point. It differs from a description on a tourist website where trivia might be included. You can check the lead of India which has been a featured article for a long time. India is linguistically diverse but there is no mention of Linguistic diversity index.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to chime in that I disagree on the removal of the prominent landmarks of the city, even as I had removed several not so internationally famous ones. A quick look at Beijng, London and New York City shows that all three articles showcased their respective prominent attractions in the leading paragraphs. Since Singapore is a city and a country, I do not see a problem with mentioning them.

With regards to the "highest" religious diversity, I think we can limit it to "has one of the highest religious diversity in the world" and cite the PEW article without mentioning it in the article itself.Seloloving (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Actually the reason for removing landmarks is because it is very hard to find reliable secondary sources which agree that these are prominent landmarks. Sources also disagree about which landmarks are "prominent". I have gone though quite a number of sources and I am unable to find one which terms these are prominent. The city articles you quoted are not really featured articles which are supposed to reflect the best quality on Wikipedia. Instead of "landmarks" what could be perhaps included is prominent tourist attractions. It can be added on to the details about economy.

As for "highest religious diversity" the problem is precisely with using the term "highest religious diversity" in Wikipedia Voice. This is also different from general usage which favours "religious diversity" or "lack of religious diversity". Using a superlative isn't useful here.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Are the tags seriously necessary? What exactly is the dispute here really? No one seemed to have had an issue with the original lead except for you. I don't understand why you hadn't brought up your concerns during the GA review. I hate edit warring as much as everyone, we know how it had ended last time. You also seem particularly focused on articles that I edit. I honestly can not comprehend what your intentions are here. Feinoa (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the tags are necessary because it shows a problem with the article and other editors can chime in. The point is to get consensus and silence is not consensus. I believe other editors have had issues with the lead and this solicits feedback. As for the GA review I didn't even know it was going on. If I knew I would have provided feedback. Usually a good practice is to post in the relevant WikiProjects to get comments. I am simply trying to edit articles and improve the quality. Wikipedia is a collaborative project where we collaborate, discuss and improve articles.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Feinoa: I would appreciate if you could self revert and restore the tags. I believe it would be good if you follow the advice given by an administrator here.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten it. Feinoa (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Including landmarks

@DreamLinker In my opinion, just because the pages aren't featured articles does not mean one can attribute that lack of certification due to the inclusion of famous landmarks within the lead section, there could be other criteria preventing it from getting FA status. I had listed the 3 as an example befitting their status as world famous major cities with a disproportionate amount of influence in international affairs, both culturally and economically. Looking at several cities with FA status, I cite Istanbul and Minneapolis - both articles too mention their famous landmarks within the lead section (lacking a source too), albeit limited to the more notable ones. I would support restoring the sentence to feature only Marina Bay Sands, Jewel Changi Airport and the UNESCO recognized Botanic Gardens. Seloloving (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: Do you specifically mean "landmarks" or are you referring to "tourist attractions"? As I mentioned earlier, I support adding some major tourist attractions to the lead (good quality citations, such as journal articles can be found for these easily) and also information about tourist arrivals. The Istanbul article you mentioned is actually mentioning 3 important tourist attractions. Minneapolis is mentioning the places in the context of places significant for arts. I also checked Hyderabad which means the famous Charminar monument in the context of historical buildings. Canberra mentions many buildings which are of national significance politically. Ultimately, all of them have a criteria or context and they generally mention 2 or 3 only. In case of Singapore, this should probably be tourist attractions.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@DreamLinker I wouldn't separate them into landmarks or tourist attractions as both are one of the same - they attract people to visit, whether domestically or foreign, and as such count as a landmark which is heavily advertised for tourism purposes. It's pretty undeniable that for Changi Airport and Marina Bay Sands, the former is a famous transit point and the latter an integral part of the skyline of Singapore. Most of the articles cited do list UNCESO heritage sites, so the Botanic Gardens should not have been omitted either way. Seloloving (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The point here is that we require citations and we also need to use due weight. If we add some particular places to the lead, there has to be some criterion. The UNSECO world heritage sites in Istanbul are the biggest tourist attraction, hence the mention (it is also mentioned in the context of tourism). The problem with a list which includes Jewel Changi Airport, Gardens by the Bay and Singapore Botanic Gardens is that the selection criteria is arbitrary. I can find multiple research papers dating as far back to the mid 1990s which mention Sentosa and Orchard as major tourist attractions. More recently Marina Bay Sands is also stated as a major attraction. However, I am unable find such citations for Singapore Botanic Gardens and Jewel Changi Airport.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not opposed to a mention of Singapore Botanic Gardens the lead. However, I am opposed to lumping it with the major tourist attractions. Let me see if I can add it from an environment/cultural perspective.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Seloloving I have added Singapore Botanic Gardens to the lead, but not included in the list of tourist attractions. As for Jewel Changi Airport I cannot find any mention that it is a major tourist attraction. I would oppose including it.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I will compromise on that. Seloloving (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

My improvements to the lead text

I have completed a series of quick improvements to the lead text after being frankly appalled by the lack of historical accuracy (Singapore was never a "crown colony within the Straits Settlements"...), the absence of proper syntax in parts, and the vague nature of some statements made about Singapore's economy and history. I have outlined my changes below. Feel free to discuss these changes and suggest other improvements:

Previous text:

Although its history stretches back millennia, modern Singapore was founded in 1819 by Sir Stamford Raffles as a trading post of the British Empire. In 1867, the colonies in East Asia were reorganised and Singapore came under the direct control of the British Crown as a crown colony within the Straits Settlements. During the Second World War, Singapore was occupied by Japan in 1942 but returned to British control as a separate crown colony following Japan's surrender in 1945. Singapore gained self-governance from the British Empire in 1959 and joined Malaysia as a state along with Sabah and Sarawak in 1963, but separated two years later over ideological differences, becoming a fully sovereign state in 1965. After early years of turbulence and despite lacking natural resources and a hinterland, the nation rapidly developed to become one of the Four Asian Tigers based on external trade.

The city-state is home to 5.6 million residents, 39% of whom are foreign nationals, including permanent residents. There are four official languages of Singapore: English, Malay, Chinese, and Tamil. Singapore's population is culturally diverse and has one of the highest religious diversity in the world. Since independence, national policies in education, housing and politics are guided by multiracialism.

My edit:

Although its history stretches back millennia, modern Singapore, then part of the erstwhile Johor Sultanate, was founded in 1819 when Stamford Raffles, a British officer, established a trading post of the East India Company on the island. In 1826, the island and its islets were fully ceded by the Johor Sultanate, and Singapore was incorporated into the Straits Settlements, a group of East India Company holdings in the Malay peninsula. From 1830 to 1858, the Straits Settlements were administered as a Malayan subdivision of the East India Company's Bengal Presidency. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Settlements were administered as part of the British Raj from 1858 to 1867 until Britain's colonial holdings in the Malay archipelago were separated from British India and reorganised in 1867, transferring the rule of the Straits Settlements from Calcutta to London, thus bringing the Straits Settlements under the direct control of the British Crown as a crown colony.

During the Second World War, Japan successfully invaded Singapore, resulting in an interregnum of British rule and a brief Japanese occupation from 1942 to 1945. Following Japan's surrender in 1945, Singapore was returned to British control as a separate crown colony in 1946. Following a period of agitation against British colonial rule, Singapore gained self-governance from the British Empire in 1959. In 1963, Singapore federated with the British Empire's holdings in the Malay peninsula, as well as with Sabah and Sarawak, to form the Federation of Malaysia, but after two tumultuous years as a constituent state of the Federation, Singapore seceded in 1965 to become a fully sovereign state. After early years of turbulence, and despite the country's absence of natural resources and a hinterland, the nation rapidly developed and industrialised, becoming a high-income economy and developed country within a single generation.

The city-state is home to 5.6 million residents, 39% of whom are foreign nationals, including permanent residents. There are four official languages of Singapore: English, Malay, Chinese, and Tamil, with Malay being accorded special status in Singapore's constitution as the country's national and ceremonial language. As a legacy of colonial rule, Singapore's citizen population is racially, culturally, and religiously diverse; since independence, the country's national policies in education, housing and politics have come to be defined by the state's guiding principle of multiracialism.

Tiger7253 (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the edits. The previous version was indeed lacking, and I could not put my finger on it until your rewrite. Although it may have expanded the lead a little, this summary has a better representation of the history of Singapore pre-Japan occupation. Hope this sticks! robertsky (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Robertsky I am also improving the first lead paragraph. Singapore is a littoral state that has been shaped by its maritime position and history, so it makes no sense to exclude a nod to its maritime position from a geographic description of the island. Here are my improvements:

Previous text:

Singapore (/ˈsɪŋ(ɡ)əpɔːr/ ), officially the Republic of Singapore, is a sovereign island city-state in Southeast Asia. The country is situated about one degree (137 kilometres or 85 miles) north of the equator, at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, with Indonesia's Riau Islands to the south and Peninsular Malaysia to the north. Singapore's territory consists of one main island along with 58 other islets. Since independence, extensive land reclamation has increased its total size by 23% (130 square kilometres or 50 square miles).

My edit:

Singapore (/ˈsɪŋ(ɡ)əpɔːr/ ), officially the Republic of Singapore, is a sovereign island city-state in Southeast Asia. The country's territory is composed of one main island and 58 other islets, the combined area of which has increased by 23% since the country's independence as a result of extensive land reclamation projects. Singapore is positioned about one degree (137 kilometres or 85 miles) north of the equator, and is situated off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula and the southernmost tip of the mainland Asian continent. The island country shares its southern maritime border with Indonesia's Riau Islands and its northern, western, and eastern maritime borders with the Johor state of Peninsular Malaysia. It is geographically positioned within the confluence of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, being bounded by Malacca Strait to its west and the South China Sea to its east.

Tiger7253 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. The lead looks much better now, especially the additions to the history.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Revamped historical affiliations box

Old (left) // New (right) /// Tiger7253 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Historical affiliations	Period
Srivijaya	650–1377
Kingdom of Singapura	1299–1398
Malacca Sultanate	1400–1511
Johor Sultanate	1528–1819
Straits Settlements	1826–1942
Empire of Japan	1942–1945
British Military Administration	1945–1946
Colony of Singapore	1946–1963
State of Singapore	1963–1965
Republic of Singapore	1965–present

Historical affiliations	Settlement and Time Period
Srivijaya	Temasek 7th century–13th century c. 700 years
Kingdom of Singapura	Singapura 1299–1398 99 years
Malacca Sultanate	Singapura 1400–1511 111 years
Johor Sultanate	Singapura 1528–1819 291 years
	Singapore 1819–1824 5 years
East India Company	Singapore 1824–1826 2 years
	Singapore Straits Settlements British Malaya Bengal Presidency 1826–1858 32 years
British Raj	Singapore Straits Settlements British Malaya Bengal Presidency 1858–1867 9 years
British Empire	Straits Settlements 1868–1874 1874–1925 1925–1942 British Malaya 1867–1942 75 years
Empire of Japan	Syonan-to 1942–1945 3 years
British Empire	British Military Administration British Malaya 1945–1946 1 year
	Colony of Singapore 1946–1952 1952–1957 British Malaya 1946–1957 11 years
	Colony of Singapore 1957–1959 1959–1963 1957–1963 6 years
Malaysia	State of Singapore 1963–1965 2 years
Republic of Singapore	Singapore 1965–present 59 years ago–present
	Singapore in ASEAN 1967–present 57 years ago–present

Tiger7253 Looks good to me. Could we remove the background colours though?--DreamLinker (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistent removal of Malay as national language from the infobox

I would like to know why the mention of Malay as the national language of Singapore is constantly removed from the infobox. [9] As far as I understand it is always stated as the national language, while 4 languages are given the status of "official languages" (presumably the government guarantees services in these languages). This version [10] by Tiger7253 seems to at least indicate the status as the national language.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the mention of Malay as national language and English as lingua france in the infobox [11]. I feel the version by Tiger7253 is concise and mentions both aspects well. The references about English as the lingua franca should be present in the article of course, but in the languages section. The infobox is ultimately a summary of the article contents. I have moved the references to the languages section and also mentioned that English is the lingua franca over there.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I support the edit done by Tiger in terms of completeness and being more informative than whitewashing the status of each language in the country. robertsky (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comprehensive overhaul of lead, infobox, and historical timeline

Dear Robertsky, Feinoa, DreamLinker, and anyone else who has helped with or observed my edits: I believe I am more or less done with my overhaul of the above-mentioned components of this article. The article as a whole needs to be significantly improved and brought in line with the standard of the revamped lead, but I will be taking a break from making major edits to this article for the time being as I have done more than enough for now.

It goes without saying that Wikipedia is a democratic resource, and no one person gets to monopolise the editorial process, so as always, please feel free to voice out any concerns you may have about the content in the lead, infobox, historical timeline table, or anywhere else.

Cheers, Tiger7253 (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC) x

@Tiger7253: thank you. I may swing back into here, once I get off from the rabbit hole of updating other Singapore related articles. robertsky (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Great work, Tiger7253! The article has definitely improved immensely and it looks way better than before. Feinoa (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Next round of changes

Hi Robertsky, Feinoa, and anyone else who might be observing - I shall be continuing with my sprucing up of this article in the weeks and months to come. Frankly speaking, most of this article is an antique dinosaur from the 2000s, and it is high time it got spring cleaned from top to bottom.

Right, so for today, I have made changes to the sovereignty section of the infobox by adding more parameters. The sovereignty section is intended to cover the process of the formation of a certain country or territory, so in Singapore's context, the first event parameter should rightly cover a historical event that can be considered the equivalent of the laying of the foundation stone for modern Singapore, so to speak.

It is evident from a cursory study of Singapore's history that Raffles' arrival in 1819 marks the formation of the modern Singaporean state, because the British arrival marked 1) Singapura's anglicisation to Singapore, 2) the arrival of most of the ancestors of the contemporary non-Malay populace, and 3) the genesis of the laws, institutions etc. that remain in use in the modern Republic. The first parameter of the previous sovereignty section (ie the one that existed prior to my edit) started at 1959, when Singapore gained self-governance from the British Empire. I have changed the starting point to the very first treaty that Raffles signed. This is followed by the second treaty that he signed. The third parameter tackles Singapore's incorporation into the Straits Settlements, as that was the first proper governing framework that was applied to Singapore. Then it skips to the fall of Singapore and the defeat of the Japanese, before picking up at the point where the previous sovereignty section started, with a few additions here to accurately document when exactly was it that Singapore became independent from the British Empire (this is something most people get confused over).

Please let me know your thoughts. Are there are any particular events that you consider formative in the Republic's history, and if so, should they be included? Is there anything that should be excluded - like for example, the Japanese occupation? While the occupation is part of this country's history, is it "formative"? As in, did it set the stage for the creation of the modern Republic? Was it just an "interruption"? And should any of the parameters be renamed? Cheers, Tiger7253 (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC) (I can't seem to shift the mini infoboxes attached to this message to the left. Old one above, revamped one below.)

Singapore/Archive 13
Independence  from the United Kingdom
• Self-governance	3 June 1959
• Malaysia Agreement	16 September 1963
• Proclamation of Singapore	9 August 1965
• ASEAN Declaration	8 August 1967

Singapore/Archive 13
Formation of the modern Republic
• Singapore Treaty	6 February 1819
• Treaty of Friendship and Alliance	2 August 1824
• Straits Settlements	14 August 1826
• Fall of Singapore	15 February 1942
• Surrender of Japan	2 September 1945
• Self-governance	3 June 1959
• Independence from the British Empire	31 August 1963
• Malaysia Agreement	16 September 1963
• Proclamation of Singapore	9 August 1965
• Current constitution	22 December 1965
• ASEAN Declaration	8 August 1967

What impressed me the most of the early years of the colony was the Jackson Plan. After hundreds of years, the marks of the original plan still remain noticeable. The buildings and type of trade may have changed, but the general areas that are marked out for civil administration and business areas in that plan are generally is what of where most of the civil administration buildings are now and the CBD area.

As for Japanese occupation, it is a formative period for the modern Singapore. Due to the invasion and subsequent occupation, many lessons were drawn from it: the illusion that Westerners are always supreme, that external powers can be relied on, etc. Many of modern day policies are a consequence of this period, the introduction of Total Defence strategy, National Service. Without the invasion, it would not set the path for Lee Kuan Yew to eventual seek out independence many years later. Rather than as an interruption, I would see the occupation as a pivotal point in the history of Singapore. If there were any disquiet before the invasion, we would need to research, but the desire for independence certainly were intensified after the occupation. robertsky (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Robertsky Good points on all counts. I agree with you re: The Japanese occupation, so that shall remain in the infobox. The Jackson Plan was certainly formative where Singapore's urban planning and economic development were concerned, though I doubt it can be considered part of the same category as the other sovereignty-related formative events listed in the infobox. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: How should the lead mention Singapore's religious diversity

There is a clear consensus for:

• A. Singapore's population is culturally and religiously diverse

Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (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.

---

How should the lead mention Singapore's religious diversity? (Link to previous discussion)

• A. Singapore's population is culturally and religiously diverse
• B. Singapore's population is culturally diverse and has one of the highest religious diversity in the world.
• C A 2014 study by Pew Research Center found that Singapore has the highest religious diversity of any country.
• D Any other suggestion

References

Please mention your preference in the survey section.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• A: The lead should summarize the body. Option A is short and to the point. One can expand on this in the body. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: It is sufficient on its own as a summary. robertsky (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: It's the best as a summary and easiest to understand. Zubin12 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: as it is short and to the point.--Eostrix (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: The first sentence can be chosen as the most appropriate option for that; since such brief sentence (which can show the concept of the matter) is short/appropriate enough for the "lead section"; because as you know, shorter texts are better for the "Lead". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• A is preferable as simplest. I think the wikilinks could be improved, though; I'd prefer they link to something like Culture of Singapore and Religion in Singapore rather than generic religion/culture articles. Sdkb (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• A, for I think it sums up the fact that Singapore has a culturally and religiously diverse society in the most succinct and yet accurate way. Kerberous (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

There is no need to make comparisons to other locations, that can be done in the body. Also comparing means that the lead would likely be updated more frequent than it should be, or result in conflicting edits when updated versions of the ranking appear and Singapore somehow drops in the rank, or when there are competing rankings with different criteria. robertsky (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with this. In addition, I also have some concerns about the index itself and it's simplistic criteria to determine religious diversity.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, a summary means that editors should be forced to update the body first, reexamine the lead if it requires update, not the other way round. Haha. Everyone has issues with every single index/ranking that is thrown in any article. Is there any other studies that we can use to determine religious diversity and reinforce the claim, or lackof? If not, there are only two ways to go about it, 1. maintain current inclusion. 2. remove claim. robertsky (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: as per Ali Ahwazi Idealigic (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2020 (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.

Next round of changes Part 2

Robertsky, Feinoa, the next tranche of changes, this time in the Etymology section (renamed to "Name and etymology"):

Old:

The English name of Singapore is an anglicisation of the native Malay name for the country, Singapura, which was in turn derived from Sanskrit (सिंहपुर, IAST: Siṃhapura; siṃha meaning "lion", and pura meaning "town" or "city"), hence the customary reference to the nation as the Lion City, and its inclusion in many of the nation's symbols (e.g., its coat of arms, and the Merlion emblem). However, it is unlikely that lions ever lived on the island—Sang Nila Utama, the Srivijayan prince said to have founded and named the island Singapura, perhaps saw a Malayan tiger. There are, however, other suggestions for the origin of the name, and scholars do not believe that the origin of the name is firmly established. The central island has also been called Pulau Ujong, literally "island at the end" (of the Malay Peninsula) in Malay, as far back as the third century CE.

Singapore is also referred to as the Garden City for its tree-lined streets and greening efforts since independence, and the Little Red Dot for how the island-nation is depicted on many maps of the world and Asia, as a red dot.

New:

The English name of Singapore is an anglicisation of the native Malay name for the country, Singapura, which was in turn derived from Sanskrit (सिंहपुर, IAST: Siṃhapura; siṃha meaning "lion", and pura meaning "town" or "city"), hence the colloquial reference to the nation as the Lion City, and the inclusion of lion motifs in many of the nation's symbols (e.g., its coat of arms, and the Merlion emblem). The Sanskrit etymological origin of the name predates the spread of Islam in the Malay archipelago, and dates back to the Hindu-Buddhist civilisational epoch in the region, when Sanskrit was a lingua franca and the language of Dharmic liturgy and high culture in much of mainland and maritime Southeast Asia.

Although the etymological origin of Singapore's indigenous endonym is established, the etiological and chronological origin of the name remains uncertain. For several centuries, Singapore was known to the inhabitants of the Malay world as either Pulau Ujong—literally "island at the end" (of the Malay Peninsula) in Malay, a name that remains in use today as an appellation for the main island—or as Temasek—an ancient Malay term meaning "sea town". The two prevailing scholastic theories point to the name Singapura supplanting both previous names in either the 13th century or the 14th century.

The first and more popular hypothesis, drawn from the semi-mythical Malay Annals, states that the island was christened Singapura by Sang Nila Utama, a 13th-century Srivijayan prince who founded the Kingdom of Singapura and sought to give the island a regnal name after witnessing a lion stalking its shores. However, it is unlikely that lions ever lived on the island—the only big cat endemic to the Malay peninsula is the Malayan tiger. The second hypothesis, drawn from other historical sources, states that the fifth and final Raja of the Kingdom that Nila Utama established, the 14th-century Parameswara—who would then go on to found the Malacca Sultanate after the sack of Singapura by the Majapahit—christened the island Singapura as a way of exerting his power with a regnal name after usurping it from its previous ruler.

In modern Singapore, Singapura remains the official Malay name of the country, and is prominently featured in the motto, the anthem, the coat of arms, and the various crests of the armed forces and government agencies, like the police and the civil defence force.

The appellation Garden City is used in promotional material to commemorate the city-state's intensive greening efforts since independence, and the colloquialism Little Red Dot is used as a personification for the island-nation, as a nod to how it is depicted on many maps of the world—as a singular red dot.

Tiger7253 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

References

@Tiger7253: Not one of the mentioned people, but I feel that it may be slightly WP:TECHNICAL. Terms like "etiological" and "appellation" should probably be clarified or rephrased. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Murals in Singapore

I flagged Murals in Singapore awhile ago when I came across it via Special:Random. Chock-full of original research, badly written, poorly sourced. I've been working on a rewrite, but I'm starting to question whether it really needs/deserves a stand-alone article. I've a few paragraphs, the rest is just call outs of murals from touristy-type websites.

What I'd like to do is move the following content and sources into the #Arts section of this article, and then redirect Murals in Singapore to this article. Objections? Support?

Murals in Singapore have been encouraged by the government in recent years as part of Singapore's efforts to recast itself as a "Renaissance City" and global arts city. These public art works require permission from the government; unauthorized public art and graffiti are subject to legal penalties under the Vandalism Act in Singapore. Many murals depict scenes common to Singapore's cultural heritage.

In 2013, Singapore launched the PubliCity program, which designated two blank walls along the Rail Corridor for urban art. The Rail Corridor, once a 24 kilometres (15 mi) railway line between Singapore and Malaysia, had closed in 2011. Artwork along the walls of the Rail Corridor is curated by RSCLS, a local art collective. In 2014, the National Arts Council set up the Public Art Trust which provided both a public spaces program in which artists' proposals and willing site owners are matched up, as well as six walls at Goodman Arts Centre, Aliwal Arts Centre, and *Scape youth centre for practice spaces.

Schazjmd (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Schazjmd: Wouldn't it better to put this in Culture of Singapore instead? I don't think murals are important enough to Singapore's art scene to be put in the main article. I would agree with the deletion of that article. Thanks, Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 10:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Darylgolden, you're right, I didn't find that article when I was looking for a home for the content. Culture of... is much more appropriate, thanks! I'll go start a conversation there. Schazjmd (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

missed out points

Singapore has conscripted army

following the population trends, female population seem to be higher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.119.238 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Conscription army is covered under Singapore#Military. Regarding population trends, suggest the necessary edits here to be included, thanks. robertsky (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Government" in the table on the right side of the article page

The Order of Precedence in Singapore dictates that the Chief Justice be listed BEFORE the Speaker of Parliament and that "Parliament Speaker" is an improper phraseology of the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.128.77 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, IP. I have double checked and verified against Singapore Order of Precedence and its sources. Updated accordingly and inserted DPM as well. robertsky (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Singapore did not receive its independence directly from the UK

I think that to describe Singapore as having attained its independence from the UK is factual incorrect (wrong). Malaysia received its independence from post-Independence Malaysia by virtue of the Proclamation of Singapore on 9 August 1965. It should be amended, therefore, I would suggest, from 'Independence from the United Kingdom' -> 'Independence from the United Kingdom and Malaysia'. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How to clean up the lead section?

At the time of posting, there's a template saying the lead is too long, which I agree with. I don't really know how best to clean it up though, as I'm a new editor. It feels like there's too much on the boundaries and history, as well as the economic status. Any suggestions? Mjychabaud22 (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In February, when this article was assessed for GA status, the article looked like this. As a start I have restored that, but I note that even that formulation is longer than advised under WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

CMD I understand the importance of brevity, but I would appreciate it if you could outline the rationale behind your changes on this talk page and (most importantly) seek consensus from the Wikipedians that have long contributed to Wikiproject Singapore instead of going at it unilaterally. The changes to the lead were largely made by me; I took pains to declare and outline every single change on this talk page and seek input from other Wikipedians after I identified a series of factual errors and other incongruities that made the article undeserving of its GA status - which I feel was prematurely assigned. In reverting this article back to a previous form, you have ignored the motivations behind the edits made by me and the other Wikipedians and paved over a lot of hard work; you have also ironically made this article far less deserving of its GA status.

Take for example the content in the lead that you restored. It asserts that Singapore was a "colony in East Asia" (untrue); that Singapore was a "crown colony within the Straits Settlements" (categorically untrue - the crown colony was the Straits Settlements as a whole, Singapore only became a standalone crown colony a century later after WWII); that Singapore "joined Malaysia as a state" (Singapore federated with Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak to create Malaysia from scratch, this sentence insinuates that Malaysia existed prior to the federation of these territories and that Singapore just happen to join up with a pre-existing polity). The old lead is replete with these factual errors; it is frankly beyond me that the article was approved for GA status back in Feb.

I shall be reverting all of your edits to restore the lead (which is at least factually accurate, unlike the current lead) in the hopes that we can hash things out here and trim out content in the lead that we can agree is superfluous or would be better moved elsewhere. Feel free to revoke the article GA's status (if you have the power to do that) because it never qualified for it in the first place. Tiger7253 (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

CMD Beyond the lead, a few other reversions/edits made by you re-introduced/introduced factual errors into the article: take for example this edit of yours - all three women in the image are Malay (source is an online demographic resource run by the Singapore government). It's hard to argue in favour of your mass reversions bolstering the article's GA status in any way - all the more reason for us to flesh things out on here. Tiger7253 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't have anything to do with the GA status, I was simply using it as a clear and recent benchmark where the lead was far more in line with WP:LEAD than the current one, which is also quite WP:PEACOCKy and not written in an encyclopaedic manner. Other than that, the rationale was as stated. Looking through the talkpage I see 3 very short discussions started by you, that does not feel like a declaration and outlining of 378 edits, but they can certainly be discussed.

On the specific issues: the term "colony" is not used only in a single strict legal sense. A rewording regarding Malaysia seems apt. On the other hand, the old lead didn't have specious phrases such as "coercively wresting", "sojourners from the region", "fully emancipated", "truly sovereign city-state", etc. Of the two the original one is far more encyclopaedic.

On your other comments, I didn't add the image you mention to the article, and you've seem to have kept it before and now left it in despite your objections. Furthermore, only a single one of my edits was a reversion, so I'm not sure how it can be described as a mass reversions. It would be interesting to hear your reasons for why you reverted them, given you have only mentioned here the lead and a picture that you didn't remove from the article.

On GA, I'm not concerned about bolstering any "status", but with article's being written according to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. The current lead does not meet the criteria, especially as it sounds like you wrote it on its own, rather than as what its supposed to be, which is a summation of the contents of the rest of the article. As for fleshing out my other edits, I would again ask why you reverted them, given it is not explained above. CMD (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

CMD

"I didn't have anything to do with the GA status, I was simply using it as a clear and recent benchmark where the lead was far more in line with WP:LEAD than the current one, which is also quite WP:PEACOCKy and not written in an encyclopaedic manner. Other than that, the rationale was as stated."

The rationale behind your reversion of the lead was to restore it to its GA-worthy predecessor - which would be valid if the old lead was GA-worthy. It was never GA-worthy. Like you, I was not involved in the discussions for GA status, so I am frankly appalled that GA was even granted. The old lead is patchy, abrupt, factually inaccurate in parts, is poorly composed - with poor flow and syntax - and is frankly an unbalanced summation of Singapore's history because of its slice-and-dice omission of central aspects of Singaporean history (skewed narrative?) Take, for example, Singapore's pre-colonial history - the lead makes a scarce reference to it, but modern Singapore came into being when the British forced a cession of the island from the Johor Sultanate. It is a foundational aspect of Singapore's history. Why is that not summed up in the lead? Was Singapore terra nullius? It is my belief that the GA status should be revoked in the interim while you, I, and other Wikipedians collaborate on the changes at hand. The article can always be be re-evaluated for GA in the future when it is concise, factual, and in line with Wikipedia policy. It should never have been granted, to begin with.

I understand and accept the issues that you have pointed out with my edits (re: WP:PEACOCK and the divergence from WP:LEAD). Your points are salient, but do take note that I only intended to get the ball rolling. I am not a one-man army and I cannot steer the lead into perfection on my own. Even with its issues, it is at the very least 100% factual and far more balanced and representative of the article than the previous lead (to return to it would be to do this article a disservice). I think we could proceed by taking stock of the content that I have chosen to include in the newer lead and figure out a way to bring most - if not all - of it in line with WP:PEACOCK and WP:LEAD instead of doing away with it entirely. Let me know if you are agreeable to this, and we can dissect each and every single element on this talk page (with the involvement of other Wikipedians).

"Looking through the talkpage I see 3 very short discussions started by you, that does not feel like a declaration and outlining of 378 edits, but they can certainly be discussed."

Most of the talk page discussions I started have since been archived. It is indeed true that I took the most initiative and made the bulk of changes to the lead, but there were at least three other contributors aiding me in shaping the new lead (Robertsky, DreamLinker, and Feinoa); Feinoa was ousted for sockpuppetry in the end. The bulk of my 378 edits (thanks for counting them) were minor changes (eg: grammar, vocab, punctuation, syntax) - I tend to edit those on the fly.

"On the specific issues: the term "colony" is not used only in a single strict legal sense. A rewording regarding Malaysia seems apt. On the other hand, the old lead didn't have specious phrases such as "coercively wresting", "sojourners from the region", "fully emancipated", "truly sovereign city-state", etc. Of the two the original one is far more encyclopaedic."

Perhaps the fault is mine for not properly expounding on my edits. I shall do that here:

- Re: "coercively wresting": The British used coercion to wrest Singapore from the Johorean Sultan. The Anglo-Dutch treaty (see infobox) resulted in the cession of Singapore by means of subterfuge and other coercive tactics.

- Re: "sojourners from the region": Many Chinese and Indian settlers in 19th-century colonial Singapore were not there on a permanent basis (settlers), but were rather transient (sojourners) - the term "sojourner" is used in official parlance by Singaporean state media and its institutions (eg. Institute of Policy Studies; source.

- Re: "fully emancipated": Singapore's decolonial process is unique in that it was granted limited autonomy by the British Empire in 1959 and full independence in 1963. The decolonisation of Singapore was thus a multi-step process, not something that happened virtually overnight (in the case of India). How might these two separate incidents by disambiguated other than through the use of an intensifier ("fully" emancipated?) Without that, does it not raise the prospect of conflation?

- Re: "truly sovereign city-state": Singapore is the only sovereign city-state that has an armed forces and a national currency. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state#Singapore - " The Economist refers to the nation as the "world's only fully functioning city-state". In particular, it has its own currency and a full armed forces for deterrence to safeguard the nation's sovereignty against potential aggressors." I was paraphrasing an existing quip.

I hope you can now see why I phrased things in this manner. We can always rephrase it for encyclopaedic fidelity.

"On your other comments, I didn't add the image you mention to the article, and you've seem to have kept it before and now left it in despite your objections."

Ah, my apologies - I had no idea you were not the originator of the image and the caption. I must have gotten that mixed up in the scram. I am preoccupied primarily with the infobox, lead, and the etymology section, so I am not very familiar with the content in the body.

"Furthermore, only a single one of my edits was a reversion, so I'm not sure how it can be described as a mass reversions. It would be interesting to hear your reasons for why you reverted them, given you have only mentioned here the lead and a picture that you didn't remove from the article."

I had to roll back your other edits to restore the lead. Again, apologies for that, and for the mischaracterisation of your edits as a "mass reversion". I do not have an objection to your other edits, though I do wish you could have retained the image of the inscription of "Simhapura" in the Brahmi script - that is after all the origin of the name of the country.

Cheers, Tiger7253 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: When Tiger7253 did the rewrite of the lead, they sought for opinions here. Personally, there were little to input from me as I was agreeable with the rewrite. I am still. Upon reviewing the rewritten lead again, now that you have sought to revert Tiger7253's edits, what I find needing further work would be to incorporate the additional references and text into the content from the lead. The lead should be free of references as much as possible. robertsky (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The contention that the lead should be a "summation of Singapore's history" is incorrect. Part of the issue is that, as I noted earlier, you designed this new lead from scratch with different goals that what is advised in WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the article's content, and this lead was clearly written without consideration of the article's content. robertsky is correct, for example, that the lead could have zero references.

I find it hard to reconcile that the lead can be both more peacocky, and more balanced. Those are generally opposing concepts. The new lead is also 40% history, despite history being only 1 of 11 main sections of this article, which is again quite unbalanced, and is quite clearly much less representative of the article. Regarding the specific examples, I can imagine quite clearly in each case the reasoning behind each of the wordings. That is a separate point to the understanding that they are written in a peacocky and pointy manner. They were also not an exhaustive list, merely examples. Many other areas in the new lead face similar issues, and the overall tone is far more polemic than an encyclopaedia should be.

I would be happy to discuss reshaping the lead, but it's hard to start with your version given that it is not based on the article text, as WP:LEAD notes leads should be. Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section goes further into this. The better step would be to look through the article for the information you think should be in a lead, and check whether it is there.

As for the images, I chose the passport as it shows the modern name and feels more of an 'image' than an image which is actually just text. It would be better if there was some way to work the Brahmi into the actual text, much as other languages are worked in. CMD (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

CMD I find myself in agreement with Robertsky that it would be apt to intersperse the content from the new lead throughout the body of the article to make the lead more representative of the body's content. In fact, this was actually my plan all along. You are correct in saying that the new lead is out of sync with the body's content, but my edits to the lead were always meant to be part of a larger and segmental process - a complete revamp of the article's body, which I felt was neglected and deficient in parts (especially in the history section, which is quite sparse). I mentioned my intention to revamp the article to the now-banned Feinoa on my talk page.

I will concede by saying that I may have acted prematurely by working on the lead *first*. In doing so, I made the lead representative of a body that has yet to exist. I should have instead worked on expanding and perfecting the body prior to incorporating content from the body into the lead - not the other way round.

I think the way forward for us should be to focus on bringing the body of the article up to the mark like I originally intended (and as Robertsky suggested), and then completely reworking the lead from scratch to be representative of it. What should we do with the lead that I wrote, in the interim? I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Tiger7253 (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggested above seeing if the information you felt necessary for the lead was already in the rest of the article, which is more or less the same idea in principle as robertsky's suggestion. This would be useful irrespective of what is done with the lead.

You are right that we could productively improve the article. Regarding the rest of the article, it is already 84kB long, which is 24kB above the recommended 40-60kB wp:size. History is already the longest of the 10 body sections, with the most number of subsections. If you feel it is unbalanced in some way or missing key information, this should be rectified, but the overall trend should be towards reducing current length, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

Perhaps for the moment we should look at how the leads might merge given the current article body. The old lead better reflects the current article and is of a more appropriate length. However, you had issues with the history, so we should probably rewrite that if we restore the other text. We could also make further adjustments, taking from the new lead where it makes sense, and reflects the current article, although keeping in mind the length guidelines of WP:LEAD. If your lead is properly broken up so that its elements are definitely included within the article, it would be easier to incorporate them into the lead. CMD (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

CMD I've taken stock of your suggestions and will try to come up with something for your evaluation by the end of the week at the earliest. Bit too preoccupied right now to cobble together a new lead and sections for the body (for obvious reasons). Ciao and stay safe Tiger7253 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the boundary descriptions are excessive. If there are no objections, I will revert to the old version

• Singapore (/ˈsɪŋ(ɡ)əpɔːr/ ), officially the Republic of Singapore, is a sovereign island city-state in Southeast Asia. It lies about one degree (137 kilometres or 85 miles) north of the equator, at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, with Indonesia's Riau Islands to the south and East Malaysia to the north. Singapore's territory consists of the main island along with 58 islets. Since independence, extensive land reclamation has increased its total size by 23% (130 square kilometres or 50 square miles). Demseyhill (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This old version is way better and easier to read, but that is just one of the many issues that needs to be addressed. The lead section has become extremely huge as it got filled with unnecessary excessive mentions of Islam and India with absolutely no mentions of the other main cultures such as the Peranakans or Eurasians as well as religions such as Buddhism or Christianity. As well as calling Singapore a former 'settler-colony' without sources, it gives out a false implication to readers that Singapore is some Islamic country à la Pakistan, despite the fact that Islam only makes up 10-15% of the population and is not the main religion of the country. For example, featured articles of larger and more prominent countries such as Germany and Japan only has 4 paragraphs in their lead section and even countries such as Bosnia and Albania with higher Islamic populations does not have such puffery views about Islam in their lead section. Somned (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to weigh in and make the point that the current lead also reads too technical. Are words like "diminutiveness", "suzerainty", "thalassocratic", "sojourners", "interregnum", "erstwhile", among others, really necessary? I'm a native English speaker and I didn't recognise these words. Even my spellchecker didn't recognise "thalassocratic" and "diminutiveness". Articles should be written to be understandable to as many readers as possible. Compare the lead to that of other FA country articles like Australia, Germany and Japan. There is still jargon, but only the minimum amount necessary to be precise. I also made the same point of the etymology section in a now archived section. I would personally much prefer the previous lead. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 07:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Darylgolden, I didn't see your previous comment on the etymology section, but I have recently gone through and edited that part of the article. Would you mind having another look? CMD (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I think it looks much better now! Thanks, Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 10:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the first paragraph has now been restored and edited, I've put the rest of the old lead back to match it. I've adjusted it based on concerns raised above, although there's still room for improvement. CMD (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

"lead" should instead be "led" 75.118.201.249 (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2020

The national anthem given is incorrect. Please change it! The 2019 full one is here: https://www.nhb.gov.sg/-/media/nhb/images/nhb2017/what-we-do/national-symbols/20191126-master-48khz-24bit-majulah-singapura-sso-2019---for-full-orchestra-with-choir.wav?la=en Instrumental version: https://www.nhb.gov.sg/-/media/nhb/images/nhb2017/what-we-do/national-symbols/20191126-master-48khz-24bit-majulah-singapura-sso-2019---for-full-orchestra.wav?la=en NectarTheBee (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@NectarTheBee: Not done for now I don't see a clear indication on https://www.nhb.gov.sg/what-we-do/our-work/community-engagement/education/resources/national-symbols/national-anthem that allows uploading of the recordings here. – robertsky (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Per the assertion it is incorrect, I have in the meantime removed the US Navy file. CMD (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I don't think it is "incorrect". The US Navy version is based on an older score arrangement. The 2019 versions as linked here are based on an updated arrangement, however which was adjusted to fit to the average Singaporean singing the song. The melody is still the same. Hence, i think that the US Navy version can remain for now. – robertsky (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've put it back for now, but I am unsure of the encyclopaedic value of a track which has an older score and no vocals, and which may leave the reader with the impression that the lyrics are English when they should be Malay. CMD (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"Singapoor" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Singapoor. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 22#Singapoor until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Can I Edit This? Thx RobertPerd (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Melmann 11:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop this edit war.

@Telsho, Chipmunkdavis, Horse Eye's Back, and Katherine2005: Hi. I request for the back and forth to please stop. Since no one wants to open up a discussion here, I will gladly do so. Katherine2005, I have no idea how you are involved in this, if you could elaborate, it would be very much appreciated. May I kindly suggest and request that the original reverter, Chipmunkdavis, explain what exactly they feel is problematic with Telsho's edits and Telsho to respond in kind.

(I have read about the potential SPI reports on Telsho and request that since the report denied he was a sock of another well known blocked user, that discussions occur in good faith and we avoid the casting of asperations.)

Could we please trash out what exactly is the dispute here? Please do engage in good faith. I am willing to mediate as I just dislike seeing my country's page going through this on my watchlist. Seloloving (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have stated in the last edit summary I made two contributions which is part of the sweeping deletes. Once we object, the onus should be on the ones wanting to make the deletes - because several editors have contributed in the last few weeks and Chipmunkdave did not object then.

So for contributions by each editor, he needs to state clearly here why he wish to remove them. Onus should not be on the ones adding sourced content. Meanwhile the recent contibutions should stay (at least the ones I did). Katherine2005 (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you kindly provide diffs of your edits and the removal? Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed GDP (Nominal) To (PPP), a better measure for country comparisons. Even in the infobox, PPP appears before the nominal measure. Also added 'most competitive' country. I do think the contributions by other editors are notable too as they are sourced or have separate articles. If not in the lead, then the body - not being deleted altogether. Still no explanation from the deleting editor. Katherine2005 (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this talk page discussion. I have no idea regarding Chipmunkdavis's reasoning for severely trimming the lead section on the guise of "puffery" and reversing the work made by many other editors. As I've mentioned on the edit summary, it's no more different than other similar articles (eg. Australia, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and many more) and such content has been on there for quite sometime. I had even added reliable sources supporting such statements thereafter after the sudden initial claim of "unsourced".

Getting on topic in regards to content, could Chipmunkdavis please clarify as to what exactly is so "peacocky" that Singapore has the 2nd-highest GDP per capita in the world, has the freest and most competitive economy, had hosted events such as the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, the Ma–Xi meeting and the 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit, or that they are the only city-state in the world? As mentioned on the the guidelines of MOS:PUFF, it's literally "just the facts" well supported by secondary sources (WP:V). Why is this so contentious in the first place? Telsho (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would those events be notable enough to be in the lead? The Ma–Xi meeting and 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit are barely notable within the diplomatic history of each of the four countries involved let alone general Singaporean history. I have no objection to saying how they’re rated on the Index of Economic Freedom and the Global Competitiveness Report but we can not say “freest” and “most competitive” etc in wikivoice. In general I don’t think the lead should be packed with superlatives, but thats more a stylistic choice than something strictly policy related. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Telsho: I am unable to solve your overall dispute with HEB. I would like to kindly request you to retract the accusations of hounding on this Talkpage while we await Chipmunkdavis or HEB's explanation on why they deem your edits as puffery, when you have given your evidence that other Country pages do the same. Let's try to stay focused, my main point is solving the dispute on this article in particular. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: You're right, I'll retract it to save this article and the current talk page discussion from getting off-topic. Thanks. Also, I'm pretty sure what was reverted weren't exclusively written by me, as there were many other editors involved in improving the article, such as Coronantivirus, Dempseyhill and Katherine2005. I'm fairly certain most were already on the lead section, and I only added upon it, including adding the sources to try and support what was written. Telsho (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, my neutral view is that:

Remove: I agree with HEB that the Ma-Xi and Kim-Trump meets are not notable enough in a Singaporean context to be featured in the lead section of a country's article, as both have yet to lead to any significant impact. They may be significant firsts in terms of diplomacy, but they do not affect Singapore in any tangible way, as it's merely a host, not the facilitator of the peace process. Lots of countries like the United States, Switzerland, or even Egypt (between Israel and Palestine) host peacekeeping diplomatic events between belligerent powers. Switzerland's page mentions its Red Cross affiliation, as it's an organisation that is intrinsically linked to the country, but that's an exception.

Remove unless more citations are added: The claim to be the "only fully sovereign city-state in the world" comes from a single source The Business Insider. While I agree Singapore's situation is unique in that it is the only city-state in the world with its own currency and military, such a claim needs to be backed by more sources. The term fully sovereign cannot be reserved for Singapore exclusively when Vatican City is also a fully sovereign state with its own diplomacy corps, even if it depends on Italy for many things. The entire source also needs to be quoted, not just pasted word for word, as it's an exceptional claim.

Keep but rephrase: I agree with Telsho that as per other country articles, economic rankings can be included, but as per concerns on peacocking, rephrased to a standard terminology. The offending statement seems to be: It has been ranked by the World Economic Forum as the world's most competitive economy; the highest economic freedom, and the easiest place to do business for the past decade. I propose it be rephrased to the version seen on Israel's page: The country is ranked 1st in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report and 2nd on the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business index after New Zealand.

I hope this can satisfy both sides. Seloloving (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back is correct that the additions were undue. Many were contextless lists of meetings, various ranking from individual sources, and the odd sentence on city-states. The lead should not include specific rankings from individual World Economic Forum reports, or similar. There are already general rankings to show economic value in the lead text and in the infobox. CMD (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I note that Australia's page mentions that it's a high income economy, which is sourced from the World Bank; Singapore is listed in the same category. Netherlands's page also specifically cite the Index of Economic Freedom to indicate that it ranks highly in economic freedom. May I propose the sentence then: Singapore is a high income economy and ranks among the highest in international indexes of economic freedom and ease of doing business.

The lead is not lacking in economic superlatives. At the moment, it includes "the nation rapidly developed to become one of the Four Asian Tigers based on external trade, becoming a highly developed country; it is ranked ninth on the UN Human Development Index, and has the seventh-highest GDP per capita in the world. Singapore is the only country in Asia with an AAA sovereign rating from all major rating agencies. It is a major financial and shipping hub...". The proposed sentence is topically redundant, as both wealth and business are already covered. CMD (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not see it as redundant. Australia's page likewise touts the UN HDI, GDP alongside its high-income economy status and economic freedom status. Both information can be included in the lead. While I do not subscribe to the POV that what is necessary there must be here, I disagree that the information is redundant as being part of the Asian Tiger group does not automatically qualify and convey it as a high-income economy. What's more, the term Four Asian Tigers is rapidly becoming outdated as we approach 2020, and Singapore's status as a high-income economy should be backed by modern data; hence, in my personal view, the phrase "high-income economy" is justified. As for economic freedom and ease of doing business, none of the existing text testifies to that index. Economic freedom is not an indication of a highly developed economy as well, when compared to China's largely state-controlled economy. That said, I am not an economist. Seloloving (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"High-income economy" is redundant to "seventh-highest GDP per capita", and "seventh-highest GDP per capita" provides additional context due to its ranking rather than just being a threshold indicator. I'm not sure what you mean by "modern data"; the high-income classification is literally a binary indicator for whether average income is above a certain value. You could do it with historical data too. It is also redundant to the developed country classification. As for ease of business, the lead mentions specific business sectors, and makes a point about strong credit rating. Economic freedom is often linked to free trade, which is specifically mentioned. Economic freedom itself is a nebulous concept, which is another reason the lead should not refer to a specific index on it. CMD (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am here as a mediator, but likewise, I seek to establish concensus. That still does not dispute Telsho's and my point that the data exists alongside each other on Australia's page, as the term High-income economy exists alongside its GDP and HDI data. When I mean modern data, I am referring to the fact that the text says that Singapore was an Asian Tiger and became recognized as a highly developed country, which ended in the 1990s. We should include a modern source (ie, the World Bank ranking on High-income economies) to back that it has remained so since then, especially since Asian tiger is largely used to refer to the period of rapid growth which has no longer existed for the past few years.

I will concede on the ease of doing business point. But economic freedom - nebulous concept or not - is a point which is specifically referred to in Australia, Netherlands and New Zealand, the last of which is a GA rating. It's thus an accepted concept and I hope you would not take it personally if I feel that it being nebulous is your personal POV. Seloloving (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no "World Bank ranking on High-income economies", as I said above, it's a binary indicator. As for being a developed country, that did not end in the 1990s, and the article doesn't suggest it does. The country didn't lose all of its previous growth after the rapid growth diminished.

As for economic freedom, it is a nebulous concept. The Wikipedia article on the topic devotes its first paragraph to listing different ways it can be described. If you think the concept being nebulous is my POV, then I don't think you have read much of that article. CMD (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I still disagree. A highly developed country in the 1990s does not equate a high-income economy today. This is a point in which neither of us can agree on and I suggest we request a third-party opinion on the phrase "high-income economy" to exist alongside the phrase "highly developed country". Would you agree if I seek to put this process through arbitration?

I did look up the term economic freedom on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, we still only repeat what sources say, and the fact remains that the concept of economic freedom is widely accepted and cited in other country articles. Hence, while I do not generally have an opinion on the matter, I would propose to remove the economic freedom from the articles I have cited, to maintain the integrity of the lead across the other articles. We could also put this dispute through arbitration, if you prefer. Seloloving (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I just realised Telsho has been banned. Nevertheless, I am still proposing to put these two disputes through the Dispute resolution noticeboard as a content dispute between you and me if you are amiable. Seloloving (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

What "highly developed country" in the 1990s is not a "high-income economy" today? And again the lead does give a picture of the current situation, for example by listing ranking in terms of GDP per capita. On economic freedom, there haven't been any sources posted here, and as noted before the lead specifically mentions items related to economic freedom such as external trade, and two sectors that the country has become a hub for (both of which are sectors which require a lot of transboundary flow). What aspect of economic freedom do you think the lead and/or article should cover more? What information is not being conveyed? If you want to propose changes to other articles you can do so on those talk pages or be bold, but we can't form a consensus for them here. On dispute resolution I'm always amiable if you feel it's desirable. CMD (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a factor of what "highly developed country in the 1990s is not a high-income economy today", as that's beyond my point. My main point remains that the term highly developed country is not a fully equal term to "high-income economy", and hence cannot be replaced by one or the other. If we were to look at the page World Bank high-income economy, I quote: According to the United Nations, for example, some high-income countries may also be developing countries. The GCC countries, for example, are classified as developing high-income countries. Thus, a high-income country may be classified as either developed or developing.. Hence, high-income and highly developed are not interchangeable terms and should exist alongside each other; it would be fallacy to equate one to the other.

External trade is also not an exclusive indicator of economic freedom. Neither is the fact that Singapore is a major hub for transboundary flow exclusive to the concept of economic freedom, with the index from The Heritage Foundation (See Q3) quoting many more considerations when computing its data. Hence, it's notable enough to include as a separate factor. Of course, if your argument is that this data should not be in the lead of an article, that's where we unfortunately disagree as the economic freedom index is present in many other country pages, and to exclude it here alone on the basis that such data is nebulous would be wrong, in my humble opinion.

Under your agreement, I will seek a third-party opinion on the matter on the Disputes resolution noticeboards in the near-future (at present I am busy with my Uni, apologies) and I will notify you with a courtesy ping. Thank you, and I do hope there are no hard feelings on the matter. Seloloving (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Just so we’re clear the reputable body behind the Index of Economic Freedom is the WSJ, Heritage is a conservative libertarian think tank. Chipmunkdavis is right that the concept of economic freedom is nebulous and *this* use doesn't mean much outside of the context of libertarianism. I don’t really have a problem mentioning High-income economy but I also don't think its strictly necessary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Index of Economic Freedom is a joint report by the The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, according to its Wikipedia page. It's also cited in the leads of four of the top ten territories listed on it (New Zealand, Australia, the Republic of Ireland and Estonia). The point remains that economic freedom cannot be discerned sorely by the fact that Singapore is a major transboundary hub or external trade, as China is also both of these but is listed at 103th. It's a widely accepted concept and unless Wikipedia takes steps to actively sanction its source like other contentious publishers such as the Daily Mail (the only one I can think of), there's no reason to discredit it. Of course, this is ultimately where we disagree. Would you like me to include you in the courtesy ping for the disputes resolution assistance I have proposed? Seloloving (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and of the two of those organizations WSJ is the reliable one not Heritage. What dispute resolution service? We seem to be doing ok on this talk page and there is certainly enough participation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

We also don't mention any other form of “freedom” in the lead of this article... What makes economic freedom more notable than any other form? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the Index of Economic Freedom is a joint-report and we cannot discount one or the other when citing it. The index is either a reliable source of information, or it's not. In my view, such an index is no different from many indexes on human rights, economic competitiveness or human development that is cited across many European country articles. I believe I have tried my best to mitigate Telsho's contentious edits and have proposed to meet midway, but regrettably am still unable to come to a consensus with Chipmunkdavis on this issue and have proposed to them that we seek a third-party opinion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard.

To your second query, that's beyond the scope of the validity of the economic freedom. Should you wish to add more data on Singapore's human rights and press freedom ranking on which it has achieved a lower ranking, it would be entirely your decision. My point remains that the index is a valid source of data like other indexes, and there's no reason to exclude it.

Would you like to be part of the resolution process? As I am busy with my studies, I will only be able to set up the discussion at my spare time as it requires a significant amount of effort from the user initiating it, but I will provide you with a courtesy ping nonetheless if you wish. No ill will is intended and I am only doing my best to come to a reasonable consensus. Seloloving (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No need, I’m here and I’m a third party and I appear to be between the two position wise. Lets include High-income economy but not economic freedom. Can you agree to that consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

While I can take the easy way out and agree with you to include one and exclude the other, that would sound like horsetrading and does not dismiss the concerns of Chipmunkdavis that it's unnecessary; you initially thought so also. As you have changed your opinion, I would like to give my due respect and ping @Chipmunkdavis: and see if they are okay with its inclusion while removing the other. Alternatively, we can add a sentence in which Singapore scores highly in so-and-so international matrices but ranks lowly in so-and-so to justify the inclusion of economic freedom and to provide due weight. Seloloving (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The only reason put forward here to include the "high-income country" designation is that it is on some other pages, which is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What is the informational value of this to readers? If they even know what the designation means, all it tells them is that Singaporeans on average earn at least US$12,500 a year. That's little more than trivia. It doesn't even inform as to what the actual average income is. What value would it provide?

As for the other considerations, neutrality and weight isn't finding so many 'good' and 'bad' things to say about Singapore (horsetrading as you say), it's providing factual and appropriately weighted information. The raised concern about the creators of the particular economic freedom index in question is a good example of the issues that arise by giving undue prominence to single indexes. CMD (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Noted, we will take it to the dispute resolutions noticeboard. Unfortunately, HEB, I will have to tag you as a participant, not a third-party outsider. Seloloving (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: why the hell did you take it to the dispute resolutions noticeboard? That was completely unnecessary and I told you multiple times that it was not appropriate in this situation. Its disrespectful of both CMD and myself, have the decency to use the talk page to exhaustion rather than escalating when you don't get your way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Chipmunkdavis and I had already agreed to take it to the disputes resolution noticeboard. Please check the statement where they said "On dispute resolution I'm always amiable if you feel it's desirable". While you had proposed to exclude one information and include the other, neither Chipmunkdavis nor I agreed that the horsetrading of information to be included was a desirable solution. If you do not wish to partake, I sincerely apologise, and will remove your name from the board. Seloloving (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask for my consent to take it to the board? I had specifically said that wasn’t necessary. You claimed to want to be the mediator, but it appears you actually want to argue a side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

HEB, firstly, I apologise if my actions have been misunderstood. I have consulted with an admin, who has advised me that I may indeed have had been "a little" premature in taking it to DRN. While I had volunteered to request for a closure of the case there, I was also advised not to take it down and that we should continue discussing here while we await a comment at DRN as a two-pronged approach. As such, I formally apologise to you for taking it to DRN without your opinion as I had thought it wad a dispute between me and Chipmunkdavis specifically, especially since CMD and I had agreed to take it there before you stepped in.

I stepped into the case intending to be a mediator, but with Telsho banned, there's nothing left to mediate between two users. While I disagreed with most of his edits, I had decided that a small part of his contributions were indeed useful and worth retaining after it has been modified to suit the standards of a Lead statement. In my statement at DRN, I also clearly stated that "it's now purely a dispute between me and Chipmunkdavis", which meant I no longer considered myself a mediator. I will admit that my perspective of a third-party opinion was someone that was uninvolved in the dispute up to this point, and you were not, seeing as you had too reverted Telsho edits. I seeked DRN as I felt none of us can be considered neutral parties at this point, and certainly not I, who has clearly taken a side.

As for your question on DRN, the two questions we had argued up to the point was that was a) was the term "High-income economy" necessary to describe the state of the Singaporean economy and b) was adding indices to the lead necessary. I acknowledge CMD's point that the former is unnecessary as the economic state of affairs of the country is already adequately described and that citing indices to the lead risks giving it undue weight, on which I disagree on both counts. Hence herein lies the root of the problem. (CMD please do correct me if I had misunderstood your point.)

My questions thus ask:

Is it mere trivia to add the term "High-income economy"? (even as I argue it's necessary to maintain a distinction between it and "developed country")

Is the addition of specific indices to the lead superfluous? (when many other country articles do it and there's no specific guideline against it?)

Also, as far as I was aware, there was no consensus agreed between me and Chipmunkdavis, we clearly both grounded to a halt in the matter. If you can propose a solution to the problem as a neutral mediator, it would be very much appreciated. Seloloving (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

New thoughts

Upon further reflection, while I still disagree in the matter with Chipmunkdavis, I acknowledge that the discussion has significantly went way off the rails. I have done my part to be a mediator and had decided that most of Telsho's contributions were unwarranted. I had also decided that one sentence of him was worth keeping and tried to propose a replacement which would closely follow the standards of other country pages, but was regrettably unable to come to a consensus with Chipmunkdavis. I will admit I was also slightly surprised and unhappy when you (HEB) questioned my motives, when I have expanded every effort to assume good faith and respond with the utmost courtesy.

Ultimately, Wikipedia is my hobby, and not a career, and it's unfortunately not worth it for me to spend a significant portion of my very limited free time to engage in reinstating a single sentence on an online encyclopedia. As such, with regrets, I will withdraw the DRN proposal and cease to advocate for the addition of the sentence. @Horse Eye's Back: and @Chipmunkdavis:, I apologise for leading you both down the rabbit hole, and hoped I did my best to halt the initial reverts between the both of you and Telsho. With both your agreements, I will close the topic at DRN. Seloloving (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

Under Military in this page, there is a mistake in the ships involved in the Gulf of Aden. "In 2014, the RSN deployed two ships, the RSS Resolute and the Tenacious" should be changed to "In 2014, the RSN deployed two ships, the RSS Resolution and the Tenacious" as there is no RSS Resolute in the fleet of the Singapore Navy. Waejian (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Change made, best, CMD (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Fluff in the Water section

Removed section began with "Access to water is universal, affordable, efficient and of high quality", which is obviously PR fluff. Singapore has always faced serious challenges with its water supply, and Wikipedia needs to be a resource for facts rather than conditions that we wish existed. Kortoso (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Singapore facing challenges to securing its water supply from Malaysia does not dispute the fact that access to it is still reliable and sees very minimal disruption; those are two separate points. Could you recommend a more neutral sentence? Seloloving (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It was an unsourced sentence, so a more neutral sentence should be crafted with appropriate sourcing. CMD (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. That was precisely what I was asking Kortoso to recommend. Based on a quick search for sources, it seems the 'universal, affordable and high quality' claims came from the Water Action Decade, which is a United Nations initiative. I have also found sources about Singapore facing imminent water stress and that can be linked to the four national taps strategy. I propose:

Singapore considers water a national security issue and the government has sought to emphasise conservation. Access to water is universal, affordable and of high quality, though the country is projected to face significant water-stress by 2040. To circumvent this, the Public Utilities Board has implemented the "four national taps" strategy – water imported from neighbouring Malaysia, urban rainwater catchments, reclaimed water (NEWater) and seawater desalination.

References

Of course, if you can find a more neutral phrase for 'universal, affordable and of high quality', that would be appreciated. Seloloving (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's necessary to say it is universal affordable and of high quality, as I expect that to be a default assumption for a developed country, but I don't think it is non-neutral per se. I have no objections to that proposal, and do feel Singapore is a country where water supplies are an unusually notable issue. CMD (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have decided not to include 'affordable' as it seems the most contentious of the three, while including the other two. Please do edit the page accordingly if you feel otherwise. Seloloving (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

'HDB' abbreviation is used without definition or explanation. Suggest hyperlink to entry so available on mouse over. Spelling out the abbreviation does not meaningfully clarify what the entity is, and 'HDB' is more is the term in wide usage, so the abbreviation, with link, is appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board 47.208.27.40 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The page is already linked in the sentence prior to this; I have added HDB in parenthesis beside the link instead. I think the problem stems from the dual use of the term 'HDB' to refer to the government ministry and the form of public housing. Linking 'HDB' flats to the government ministry page would be incorrect. Seloloving (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Good solution, thank you 47.208.27.40 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

Tao70384 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)singapore has ten thousand purple hippos?

Closing incoherent random edit request. The page does not mention anything about hippos, yet alone purple ones. Seloloving (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The total area does not add up accurately.

Hello, i'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but this is perplexing. Is Singapore's land area as a whole 728 km² (281 sq mi) as stated? I came across the Singapore Island article which states that only the main island is already at 710 km² (270 sq mi).

This is without taking the other larger islands of Singapore into account, such as Jurong, Sentosa, Tekong and Ubin. Surely all these islands do not make up only 18 km² (6.9 sq mi)? Jurong alone is 32 km² (12 sq mi)! What's happening here?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if one calculates all the total land area from the List of islands of Singapore article, it actually adds up to –

• First table – 732.56956 km² (282.84669 sq mi)
• Second table – 27.519 km² (10.625 sq mi)
• Third table – 38.5767 km² (14.8945 sq mi)

• Total – 798.66526 km² (308.36638 sq mi) ≈ 799 km² (308 sq mi).

Corrected i think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzotec (talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

So am I right in saying that 728 km² (281 sq mi) is incorrect and the total land area is under counted or is there something that I am missing?. Is the Singapore Department of Statistics not counting military (Tekong) and restricted islands (Jurong) for some reason? or is it something else? What if 728 km² (281 sq mi) is actually just the main island after recent land reclamation projects within the last few years without taking the other islands into account? After all, that 710 km² (270 sq mi) number has been there since the early 2010s. If so, that would actually make the total land area today at 817 km² (315 sq mi).

If the source is vague, should Wikipedia state the inconsistency of the land area so that other readers might not be as confused as I do? I'm not sure what the course of action is.

Best, Allen

The data on Singapore Island and List of islands of Singapore seem to be wrong and lacking a source. The data on both pages were added by the same user. Pinging him as he was still active as of last year. @Deoma12: Could we know where you got the data and to when is it dated?

Regardless, according to the Singapore Land Authority, Singapore's total land area, including offshore islands, is 725.7 square kilometres as of 2019. Seloloving (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the areas of the various islands were taken from sources that were cited in articles by the National Library Board or the official websites of the authority that are managing the islands. One example would be Coral Island, which is managed by Sentosa. Do note that some of these smaller islands and islets might have been considered as part of a larger island in statistics released by the Singapore government. One such example would be the artificial islands of Chinese Garden and the Sentosa "islands" (Sandy, Treasure, Coral) that were created through land reclamation. There's no official map denoting how the authorities calculated the land area of the islands of Singapore as well. --Deoma12^(Talk) 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide the sources for each of the islands, particularly Tekong, Ubin, Sentosa and other major islands? Otherwise I feel for the sake of consistency we should only retain the total land area as calculated by the Singapore Land Authority. Seloloving (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

We should beware of WP:SYNTH in using our own reasoning on totaling land area. Measuring land area is actually subjective; it depends on many arbitrary decisions on techniques, which different sources won't all do in the same manner, so cannot be compared or combined by editors. I think all we can do is quote a single reputable source for all of Singapore, as suggested. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In regards to totalling the total land area of Singapore, I think it would be more factually correct to use the official statistics as provided by the government, rather than calculating it based on the List of islands of Singapore or the Singapore Island. As for the land areas on these articles, the former is a list that is meant to document the islands of Singapore and the land area of Singapore Island of the latter article would need to be cited with a official source. --Deoma12^(Talk) 06:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jakarta Skyline Part 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: the image is used in Template:Largest Cities in Southeast Asia, which is embedded at the bottom of the page. – robertsky (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

The third paragraph of the introduction section includes the line "Singapore is the only country in Asia with an AAA sovereign rating from all major rating agencies." The use of "an" before "AAA" is incorrect and should be edited to "a" because the reading of "AAA" is "triple A", not "A-A-A". https://www.municipalbonds.com/education/read/67/understanding-bond-ratings/#:~:text=Aaa%3A%20This%20is%20pronounced%20%E2%80%9Ctriple%2DA%E2%80%9D.

The line should read "Singapore is the only country in Asia with a AAA sovereign rating from all major rating agencies." 124.37.83.250 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done: your proposed change is strange but correct. See, e.g., this LA Times article. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Indian

please change ((Indian)) to ((Indian people|Indian)), ((Chinese)) to ((Chinese people|Chinese)), and ((Malay)) to ((Malays (ethnic group)|Malay)) 2601:541:4580:8500:E168:700C:F3EF:3615 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Low fertility rate

@Ozric14: Do you have a reliable source that claims a "low fertility rate" is not a problem for Singapore? 'One could argue' is not a valid argument unless you have specific sources related to the Singaporean context. The problem has been well documented over the years. See 1 2 3, all which describe government efforts to raise the fertility rate. Just because it's good for the environment does not mean it is a not a problem for Singapore, and efforts remain to sustain and even increase the fertility rate. Seloloving (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The view that countries experiencing an extremely low fertility rate or a decrease in population as being a "net benefit towards the environment" are one of the main talking points of ecofascism. See also Human overpopulation#Racism. Per WP:NONAZIS, it's best not to interact. 95.223.89.120 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, such an excellent illustration of Godwin's law. Thank you, anonymous contributor! Ozric14 (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seloloving: No, it is the claim that "low fertility rate" equals "problem" that requires a source, not my removal of an unsourced claim. Thank you for providing three sources, let us have a look at them. The first one (1) merely states a few facts, like "Without immigration, not only will our working age population shrink rapidly, the total number of citizens will eventually decline" and "The issue of Singapore’s low fertility rate is a decades-old concern", without providing reasons. It also explains that, in the past, "the Singapore government was concerned about eventual overpopulation in this small island-state". Source two ("Forum", 2) is a short opinion piece that seems not so relevant. The third source (3) seems very relevant. It refers to a paper "Our Population Our Future" that details the nature of the problem. But this paper was issued by the government of Singapore (Prime Minister's office) and thereby reflects the opinion of the government. But governments change, and in the past the Singapore government had a different opinion on this matter. I wonder: has the population of Singapore now reached an ideal size? The government thinks so, but what about the people of Singapore? It is them who apparently refuse to have more children. Undoubtedly, the issue is very complex.

Currently, the claim that "low fertility rate" equals "problem" is presented as an unsourced fact. Source 3 is a good one, but it reveals that the claim is in fact the opinion of the Singapore government. I suggest to adapt the sentence to reflect that the problem is perceived by the government of Singapore, and to include a reference to source 3. Ozric14 (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I would like to point out that your original reasons for removing the claim of a "problem" stems from an environmental reason and not because it's a merely a Singapore government's opinion. If we wish to reevaluate the government's claim that there is indeed a problem, there are also credible independent sources which highlight the risks a low fertility rate poses to a society/country, such as 1, which is not limited to Singapore. In addition, the birthrate problem has existed since the 80s across three successive governments (admittedly by the same party) 2, being brought up almost annually. I think it would not be accurate to frame it as a "Singapore government opinion" when the consequences as such are universal to every country and even warned about in the CIA World Factbook in the Reuters source, though it would be wise to add additional information on the contention on the influx of foreigners. Seloloving (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have rephrased the sentence to read "The Singapore government has encouraged immigration to overcome the population shortfall, which has kept Singapore's population from declining, though with a rise in tensions between locals and immigrants." Seloloving (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Seloloving, no need to rephrase. it is problem as what you have presented above. – robertsky (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seloloving: I appreciate your engaging in this discussion, but you do not accurately describe my position. My original reason for removing the (unsourced) claim that "low birthrate" equals "problem" was because it is not self-evident (note that I wrote "not obvious"). To demonstrate that something is not self-evident, one needs to provide only one counterexample, for example, an environmental reason. Simply adding a reference to the claim is not enough. The true problem is the skewed age structure of the Singapore population, and that is well documented, also for other countries. Governments typically address this problem by encouraging either immigration or reproduction. Low reproduction coupled with low immigration and increased lifespan leads to the problem of a skewed age structure. The statement that low birthrate is THE problem is a gross simplification of this complex issue and implicitly rejects immigration, and is thereby a POV. Wikipedia should not take a position like that.

I also appreciate your changes to the text, but the text still refers to low fertility rate as being the problem. To overcome this, I suggest to change "To overcome this problem" to "To overcome the problem of an aging population", or something similar. Ozric14 (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The current text doesn't really match the sources. I would suggest a rework to note the government is also trying to increase domestic fertility. For example, "The government has attempted to increase fertility with limited success, as well as adjusting immigration policy to maintain its working-age population." CMD (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify my argument, let us regard other countries with an aging population. Low fertility is also seen as a problem by governments of countries like South Korea and Japan, that hold negative views on immigration. On the other hand, governments of countries like Germany and the Netherlands, which have seen large-scale immigration, do not advocate increased reproduction of the "own" population. In Germany, this may be related to the fact that increased reproduction was promoted by the Nazi regime (in a nod to our anonymous Nazi hunter above). Thus, regarding low fertility as a problem is a POV of the Singapore government and certainly not universal. Ozric14 (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have put in my suggested wording, which I think conveys the government views by stating its policy goals. I also added a link to Population planning in Singapore, which has more information although it is lacking on the immigration side. CMD (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done. Ozric14 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Change the arrow's color for the population statistics from a "negative red" to a "neutral gray" on the infobox (See Japan for an example). Minor population fluctuations of a country is neither a positive or a negative thing, unless it's a major change (e.g. widespread exodus or a migrant crisis). 122.11.212.87 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

According to the latest census data, Singapore's total population shrank by 4.1 per cent to 5.45 million in June 2021, largely due to a fall in non-resident numbers amidst the COVID-19 travel restrictions, indicating the sharpest fall since the government began collecting such data in 1970. 2405:201:400A:880E:2998:DCE5:604E:299E (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Better source: [12] CMD (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis Hello, please specify where this information should be added. If possible, please also provide a paraphrased version of the text and I will be happy to add it to the article. Thank you. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify. Please specify exactly where this information should be added. If possible, please also provide a paraphrased version of the text. Once you have done so, reset the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate the request. Thank you. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Uh...I don't think CMD is the one proposing the change. Seloloving (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Seloloving Hello and thank you for catching my mistake. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References