Jump to content

Talk:Singapore/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

Motto

Is there any reason the motto section in the infobox is present but blank? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


"The population is highly diverse; the majority are Chinese with almost 75% of the total population"

Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.183.112 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

May I know what you don't understand about the sentence? Cheers, Arctic Kangaroo 16:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
75% from one country doesn't have to imply a homogeneous population, but highly diverse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.183.112 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yup, it's highly diverse here. It's getting late here, talk again tommorow (UTC+8). Arctic Kangaroo 17:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not about "from one country". "Chinese" in this context means Singaporeans of Chinese descent or ethnicity, not people who have come from China. Also, there is plenty of diversity _within_ the Chinese (different clans, different dialects). -- Alarics (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
In other words, ethnic Chinese. And, you can't be sure that most of them have never been to China, can you? Please source it, or people will learn facts which aren't even facts if it's wrong. Arctic Kangaroo 12:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No need to source statements on a talk page. Anyway I've reworded it. (I was actually trying to defend _your_ side of this argument, i.e. agreeing that 75% Chinese is not incompatible with diversity.) -- Alarics (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

City-state?

How can all of Singapore be a city, when the article openly mentions separate towns? There are new towns, and in the article Jurong, they call it a "town". Is all of Singapore a city, or is only the Central Area a city (as it is commonly referred to as the city) and the rest of it actually towns?--RM (Be my friend) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Mega-cities typically have identifiable communities within them that are often described as towns or villages. New York contains towns. London contains towns. -- Alarics (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
All of Singapore can be a city because each (or even more than one) of those "separate towns"/"new towns" is part of some kind of administrative division of Singapore, similar to the London boroughs or the Special wards of Tokyo (the combined land area of those 23 special wards of Tokyo is also nearly the same as that of Singapore's); so the main difference is just the name for the divisions (borough, ward, etc.) within the city. The "Central Area" of Singapore is simply the central business district of the entire island-city-state of Singapore, similar to the Lower Manhattan area of New York City. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Although the Lim Chu Kang area as well as Pulau Ubin are sometimes considered the "countrysides of Singapore", but actually in Singapore there are no "proper countrysides". The towns of Singapore such as Jurong etc are also sometimes considered "sub-urban", but Singapore is still basically a "city", so please don't get it wrong. Arctic Kangaroo 12:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean it's basically a city? Under normal circumstances, I would consider such areas suburbs, part of a metropolitan area but not part of the actual city.--RM (Be my friend) 08:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
According to the first sentence of the wiki article for suburb, "A suburb is a residential area, either existing as part of a city or urban area (as in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom), or as a separate residential community within commuting distance of a city (as in the United States and Canada)." - Ujongbakuto (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It's basically very confusing to diffrentiate the areas in Singapore into suburb and urban. But personally, I would consider the various towns as suburbs. Only the CBD area (Orchard, Marina, Tanglin) then I will call it urban. Arctic Kangaroo 10:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
So only the CBD area is truly a city?--RM (Be my friend) 22:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "truly", but if only the CBD area of Singapore is a "true city", then only the Lower Manhattan area of New York City is a "true city", while the remainder of the island of Manhattan as well as the other boroughs of The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island would either not be part of New York City or would be considered the "false" part of New York City or "false cities" surrounding the "true city" of Lower Manhattan. Anyway, Singapore has been recognized as a city-state for the past few decades, so I don't understand why this is an issue now. If another example is needed for comparison, Singapore has a smaller land area than Dallas (and not counting the smaller "cities" surrounding Dallas that constitute the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex) but a much bigger population, so if Dallas is considered a city, there should be no doubt that Singapore is a city too. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2013

Lee Kuan Yew declared "de-facto" independence for Singapore on 31 Aug 1965 (source: ST report dated 1 Sep 1965. Isthisthetruth (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Are you saying that one or more of the dates in the article are incorrect? The sources listed in the article are pretty clear on 31 Aug 1963 as the date of independence from Britain and 9 Aug 1965 as the date of independence from Malaysia as the Republic of Singapore. Please be more specific, both in the edit you would like to see made and the source you're supporting it with. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Singaporeans generally take off their shoes before entering their homes"

Does anyone find the placement of this statement in Demographics rather odd? 

Singaporeans generally take off their shoes before entering their homes.

I think it belongs more in Culture but even so, is probably too specific in this general article about Singapore. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 11:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement removed. Not particularly notable, almost verging on being trivia. — Reatlas (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2013

Hi, please change 'The total fertility rate is estimated to be .78 children per woman in 2012, the lowest in the world and well below the 2.1 needed to replace the population' to the updated total fertility rate at .79 children per woman in 2013. This is the source I got the updated total fertility rate from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html Thanks. 116.88.233.45 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! --NeilN talk to me 18:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013

The current section on the Singapore economy referencing Singapore's tax haven status should give reference to the multitude of double tax treaties and the reduction of withholding tax, which is the primary reason Singapore is chosen as a jurisdiction.

The sentence would best read as "In recent years, the country has been identified as an increasingly popular tax haven for the wealthy due to the low tax rate on personal income, a full tax exemption on income that is generated outside of Singapore and 69 double taxation treaties[1] that can minimize both withholding tax and capital gains tax. HealyConsultantsWiki (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please stop adding your company link to articles. RudolfRed (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2013

change "freest" to "most free" Aduquet (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: What's that for? --    L o g  X   17:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

One of only three city-states remaining

On City-state, there is a citation needed tag for "only three." This article also refers to only three, so I marked that as citation needed here as well. ArturGhostmancer (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014


Jeroenro (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Request to add information to 'History' related to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites at Kranji War Cemetery, Singapore. Using the CWGC's website and archives as a primary source of information and text.

Please see website to view information concerned: http://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/2004200/KRANJI%20WAR%20CEMETERY

Kind Regards,

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. That said, you may just want to wait another day or so. You've made enough edits that your account will be automatically confirmed and able to edit this article once you've been registered for four days. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

i read that they hanged a man for marijuana (shanmugam murugesu), but that alcohol is sold and served everywhere.

can someone tell me if alcohol is a "drug"? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2014

In the paragraph referring to the Formula 1 Grand prix it says the circuit is the first street circuit in Asia. This statement is inaccurate. The Macau street circuit used for the Macau Grand Prix is older. There have also been other street circuits in Singapore before the present one. Please remove this statement and the reference cited. Alternatively rephrase the sentance to say "the premier street circuit" or "the most important street circuit" or the "the first Formula 1 race in Asia on a street circuit"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.91.235 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was badly worded. I've tweaked it to line up with the information in the cited source. Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Non-Substantiated Information

Hi, I would like to raise this sentence to admins for deletion: "The dominance of the PAP has led to Singapore being classified as a semi-authoritarian regime with a low level of press freedom and suppressed civil liberties and political rights"

Here are the reasons:

  • 1) It is unsourced
  • 2) It is full of non sequiturs - political dominance does not equate to authoritarianism, low level of press freedom, or suppressed liberties/rights. Dominance means that a single party is in power, but authoritarianism indicates the style of ruling, not how much political clout a party has
  • 3) Classified by whom? Appeal to anonymous authority

As much as we should assume good faith, this statement is evidently invidious in nature and should be removed until properly sourced. --2.220.98.26 (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD reflects the body, where these are further discussed and sourcing is evident. CMD (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

British Empire never occupied Singapore

I have noticed that the Independence from United Kingdom which is completely false, When British Empire occupied Malaysia at the time Singapore (as a city) was part of Malaysia which they (Singapore) were also eventually affected by the invasion of Malaysia, However in 1963 to 1965 Malaysia were granted full sovereignty from the United Kingdom then Malaysia agreed to grant Independence for Singapore. According to this agreement —PrinceSulaiman (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia didn't exist until 1963. Prior to this Singapore was under British sovereignty, while Malaya gained independence in 1957. The transfer from the UK to Malaya as part of Malaysia's formation is an important point. CMD (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia's identity aside, its pretty much covered in historical and academic sources that Singapore was a British colony from 1826, until it gained independence from England in 1963 (at which point it joined the federation of Malaya) Zhanzhao (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014

There cannot be 6 million 4G users in Singapore where there are 4.2 million inhabitants. As this is clearly not based on fact and data cannot be accurately provided this 4G comment should be removed.

217.33.231.194 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It doesn't say there are 6 million 4G users, it says there is infrastructure to support up to 6 million 4G subscribers. This means that 3 million people could get two lines if they wanted before running out of resources. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done as can be seen in [this diff] this was added in May 2013 simply by changing 3.5G to 4G, and has been tagged since July 2013

Science section

I would like to add a general section about Science in Singapore, but I am not sure where it would be appropriate. The small section under 'infrastructure' doesn't seem to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxzlmn (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerned about bias in the Economy section

Hello. I've picked up a possible error in the Economy section, under Sectors: 'Every morning, more than 5,000 Malaysian students cross the Johor–Singapore Causeway thinking that they will receive better education in Singapore.' I feel that it implies a negative opinion on Singapore. Can someone edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The French Rat (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean a negative opinion of Malaysia? Anyway, edited. Seloloving (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Percentage population of residents in Singapore

And anyway, this is the population of residents in Singapore:

Year Total (%) Chinese (%) Malays (%) Indians (%) Others (%)
1990 100.0 77.8 14.0 7.1 1.1
2000 100.0 76.8 13.9 7.9 1.4
2010 100.0 74.1 13.4 9.2 3.3
2012 100.0 74.2 13.3 9.2 3.3
2013 100.0 74.2 13.3 9.1 3.3

(Note: Data from 2003 onwards excludes residents who have been living overseas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elite Whitesands Force (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

It was not an expulsion from Malaysia, but was the Separation with Malaysia BioQuantanium (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Separation was caused by expulsion; the Malaysian parliament was unanimous in its decision. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014

112.134.194.176 (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2014 (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. Cannolis (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Smart Nation artcle

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

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

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

Some observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case of Shanmugam Murugesu

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

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

"Singapore finally finds a voice in death row protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point is that now, nine years on, we can see that protest didn't in fact have any effect on policy. -- Alarics (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, 76.176.108.8. If you want to add this in, the onus is on you to prove it (maybe by finding multiple independent and reliable sources about the same incident), not me. I refer you to Russell's teapot. --2001:630:12:2E20:4CD0:FEDE:E780:8554 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

singapore english

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

Democracy Index

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

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

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

Panoramic view of central district

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

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

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

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

Second Paragraph, First line

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

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

Credit rating

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

Era Styles

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

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

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

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

@A D Monroe III: Two things:

1. True. Good point. 👍

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

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

@SarahTehCat:; I don't know how I missed that ping over a year ago. Though it's less entertaining, I have to answer no; I created my account before I ever heard of WP:ERA. In fact, I never noticed this connection until just now when I happened to read this. I feel like Mr Smoketoomuch. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Section

Hi, to which section this photo is the best,

Singapore garden 2014

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

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

Flawed democracy and income inequality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

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

Done Cannolis (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Millionairs?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

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

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

Not a neutral point of view for this article

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

To make more context:

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

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

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

Well, if you think that SPI is the only honest index, you are well within your rights to your opinion. But this does not represent a consensus among Wikipedia editors. Just which country uses SPI in its metrics on Wikipedia exactly? Maybe, this is giving undue weight to fringe opinions. --2001:630:12:2E20:4CD0:FEDE:E780:8554 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2015

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

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

Done Sam Sailor Talk! 09:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

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

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you use: Little red dot, it will be valid also after december 2015, when SG50 ends and then there is no political message required on the page about Singapore. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Singapore Company Registration and Formation". Healy Consultants. Retrieved 19 August 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore/Archive_9&oldid=1136380714"