![]() | Singapore strategy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 2, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Singapore strategy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Done
Interesting article, possibly, but the opening sentence tells me nothing. "The Singapore strategy was a strategy of the British Empire between 1919 and 1941." You would not start an article, "The battleship USS Nimrod" was an American battleship."
A strategy about what? - Fjozk ( talk) 07:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I was hoping someone would tie it to the second sentence in the manner Ed did. Thanks. Can the main page be changed to reflect this much better opening sentence? - Fjozk ( talk) 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think the first sentence is fine - if one does not know what the USS Nimrod was, then defining it as a battleship is informative. similarly, the Singapore Strategy could have been a Japanese strategy, or a British strategy of the 19th century.
Later in the article, in "Base Development", it is stated that the area of the shipyard was 21 sq miles. This seems rather large since only 2845 acres (4.44 sq miles) was donated. can this be checked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.217.10 ( talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Source: Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919-1939: Planning for War Against Japan Maxrossomachin ( talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The article seems to put an anti-British POV similar to that put by Paul Keating. Some examples:
The sentence (and its context): "Throughout the 1920s, the Royal Navy therefore remained the world's largest navy, with a comfortable margin of superiority over Japan, which was regarded as the most likely adversary." My issues: Does the given reference (which I cannot check) back up the first clause or the second or both? Is not the "therefore" misplaced as the first clause does not follow from the previous sentence on the Washington Naval Treaty? Is the first clause even relevant to the article? Moreover, edit summaries on reversions saying arbitrarily "this is correct" are not very helpful..without a lot more explaining. Juan Riley ( talk) 01:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I may be biased and fully accept that others might see this differently. But defining this as a "defense strategy" seems to be a stretch in my eyes. We are talking about a time when the British Empire (or whatever the correct title whould have to be) was controlling the High Seas the same way the US is at the moment. So we are talking about the projection of power in order to retain global dominance. Taking that into account this strategy is as defensive as holding a threatening fist under the nose of a weaker opponent. Do what I say or else ... Which I see as an act of passive aggression and not of defense. As pointed out at the beginning - other may see it differently. JB. -- 92.193.203.159 ( talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Singapore strategy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 2, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Singapore strategy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Done
Interesting article, possibly, but the opening sentence tells me nothing. "The Singapore strategy was a strategy of the British Empire between 1919 and 1941." You would not start an article, "The battleship USS Nimrod" was an American battleship."
A strategy about what? - Fjozk ( talk) 07:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I was hoping someone would tie it to the second sentence in the manner Ed did. Thanks. Can the main page be changed to reflect this much better opening sentence? - Fjozk ( talk) 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think the first sentence is fine - if one does not know what the USS Nimrod was, then defining it as a battleship is informative. similarly, the Singapore Strategy could have been a Japanese strategy, or a British strategy of the 19th century.
Later in the article, in "Base Development", it is stated that the area of the shipyard was 21 sq miles. This seems rather large since only 2845 acres (4.44 sq miles) was donated. can this be checked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.217.10 ( talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Source: Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919-1939: Planning for War Against Japan Maxrossomachin ( talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The article seems to put an anti-British POV similar to that put by Paul Keating. Some examples:
The sentence (and its context): "Throughout the 1920s, the Royal Navy therefore remained the world's largest navy, with a comfortable margin of superiority over Japan, which was regarded as the most likely adversary." My issues: Does the given reference (which I cannot check) back up the first clause or the second or both? Is not the "therefore" misplaced as the first clause does not follow from the previous sentence on the Washington Naval Treaty? Is the first clause even relevant to the article? Moreover, edit summaries on reversions saying arbitrarily "this is correct" are not very helpful..without a lot more explaining. Juan Riley ( talk) 01:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I may be biased and fully accept that others might see this differently. But defining this as a "defense strategy" seems to be a stretch in my eyes. We are talking about a time when the British Empire (or whatever the correct title whould have to be) was controlling the High Seas the same way the US is at the moment. So we are talking about the projection of power in order to retain global dominance. Taking that into account this strategy is as defensive as holding a threatening fist under the nose of a weaker opponent. Do what I say or else ... Which I see as an act of passive aggression and not of defense. As pointed out at the beginning - other may see it differently. JB. -- 92.193.203.159 ( talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)