![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 4 May 2021 by Seloloving.
|
Content transferred from article:
Please provide citations or examples for the above, especially the fried chestnuts case. -- Vsion ( talk) 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:Total defence logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with all the talk about Singapore? 122.106.202.24 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 11:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC).
Gorigoat ( talk) 01:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Whats wrong with talk about Singapore?
This page needs to be checked for neutrality. Veinofstars ( talk) 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
My assertion that the removed text was biased comes from the tone and obvious "position" of the text (Or position of the writer) and completely uncritical repetition of the official definition. As to it being copied and pasted, a quick search of various phrases on Google shows that the text was in many cases taken directly from various official websites. For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brings+together+all+relevant+government+agencies%2C+private+sector+organisations+and%22+site%3A.sg
Even if the websites being copied are not copyrighted, just lifting text from governmental websites that make no pretense of neutrality (and are too close to the subject to be neutral anyway) is a recipe for a biased articel. 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added {{ Globalize}} to this page, as I think that the term Total Defence is a common term and not just limited to Singaporre. As the article states the term is "adapted from countries like Sweden and Switzerland". In Sweden the term is totalförsvaret which translates directly to total defence. In Denmark as similar term totalforsvar is used to describe this (don't know about Switzerland). I'm in doubt if this page should be moved to an independent Singapore-version or it should be expanded to include country specific usages similar to i.e. lifeguard and many others. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -- Hebster ( talk) 10:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The English-language article treats only Singapore, but the other language versions and the Wikidata entry is global. These need disambiguation. – Kaihsu ( talk) 08:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any references supporting the content in the Total Defence Day article (which is short), probably except for the official website. I also see content about the warning signal and what the date is about in the Total Defence article, not just in the Total Defence Day article. So I may suggest merging the non-redundant contents from Total Defence Day into here with the new level three heading "Events" or some equivalent on the section "Initiatives". -- Merlion 444 12:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Total Defence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.whatwilludefend.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/totaldefence/microsites/whatwilludefend/home.html/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Kaihsu: Hello, may I ask for your reason for the move? Even after searching google with "-Singapore" in the search field, the only other countries employing the term as a concept are Sweden and Norway, and Singaporean-related search results are still featured prominently on the second page. In English, Singapore seems to be the only country to actively use the term to signify a defence strategy, and Google n-grams reflects the usage picking up significantly in the year it was introduced. At present, the capitalisation of the second word is still accordance with common name guidelines.
Even if the page should gradually transition toward a worldwide view of the subject, at best the present page should be moved to Total Defence (Singapore) when either a) other countries pages require the use of greater precision in the title it or b) this page has already transitioned to the general topic itself. Moving the page to a general topic "Total defence" is premature at the moment when it entirely deals with the Singaporean context. Seloloving ( talk) 10:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems to be a viable solution. I don’t have a settled view on this, but it is a problem that needs to be solved: see above. – Kaihsu ( talk) 11:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Kaihsu i have revert the move in accordance to WP:BRD. At the moment the entire page is about Singapore's Total Defence and should be reflected as such in the title until a content restructure by editors ( Seloloving as above) is completed, or an article for a global context is created. – robertsky ( talk) 15:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Additional rationale for the reversion: The content restructuring for "Total Defence (Singapore)" article should carry on from this article assuming that you are using this article as a jumppoint to retain Singapore specific details, which at the moment is majority, if not all of the current article. Moving to a generalised "Total defence" now will risk a disjoint page history between "Total Defence (Singapore)" and "Total defence". Kaihsu, if your intent to resolve the #Globalize issue with this move, congratulations. You have gotten the attention of Singaporean editors here to work on it. Cheers! – robertsky ( talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
At present, the concensus has been to shift this page to Total Defence (Singapore), with a capital 'D' in defence to signify the strategy/brand created by the government to signify it. However, I realised other countries might eventually have their own pages, and the lack the capitalisation on theirs might cause inconsistencies in page naming. Hence, I am proposing:
Option 1: Total Defence (Singapore)
Option 2: Total defence in Singapore
Option 1 is accordingly capitalised per the use of its proper name and majority of sources, while Option 2 describes the general strategy as used in Singapore and hence not capitalized, with future pages able to use the same theme. Seloloving ( talk) 03:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 08:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Total Defence → Total Defence (Singapore) – per talkpage discussion (two sections) to move to Total Defence (Singapore) to specify the page's focus on Singapore, compared to Total defence. Seloloving ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 4 May 2021 by Seloloving.
|
Content transferred from article:
Please provide citations or examples for the above, especially the fried chestnuts case. -- Vsion ( talk) 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:Total defence logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with all the talk about Singapore? 122.106.202.24 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 11:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC).
Gorigoat ( talk) 01:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Whats wrong with talk about Singapore?
This page needs to be checked for neutrality. Veinofstars ( talk) 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
My assertion that the removed text was biased comes from the tone and obvious "position" of the text (Or position of the writer) and completely uncritical repetition of the official definition. As to it being copied and pasted, a quick search of various phrases on Google shows that the text was in many cases taken directly from various official websites. For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brings+together+all+relevant+government+agencies%2C+private+sector+organisations+and%22+site%3A.sg
Even if the websites being copied are not copyrighted, just lifting text from governmental websites that make no pretense of neutrality (and are too close to the subject to be neutral anyway) is a recipe for a biased articel. 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added {{ Globalize}} to this page, as I think that the term Total Defence is a common term and not just limited to Singaporre. As the article states the term is "adapted from countries like Sweden and Switzerland". In Sweden the term is totalförsvaret which translates directly to total defence. In Denmark as similar term totalforsvar is used to describe this (don't know about Switzerland). I'm in doubt if this page should be moved to an independent Singapore-version or it should be expanded to include country specific usages similar to i.e. lifeguard and many others. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -- Hebster ( talk) 10:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The English-language article treats only Singapore, but the other language versions and the Wikidata entry is global. These need disambiguation. – Kaihsu ( talk) 08:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any references supporting the content in the Total Defence Day article (which is short), probably except for the official website. I also see content about the warning signal and what the date is about in the Total Defence article, not just in the Total Defence Day article. So I may suggest merging the non-redundant contents from Total Defence Day into here with the new level three heading "Events" or some equivalent on the section "Initiatives". -- Merlion 444 12:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Total Defence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.whatwilludefend.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/totaldefence/microsites/whatwilludefend/home.html/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Kaihsu: Hello, may I ask for your reason for the move? Even after searching google with "-Singapore" in the search field, the only other countries employing the term as a concept are Sweden and Norway, and Singaporean-related search results are still featured prominently on the second page. In English, Singapore seems to be the only country to actively use the term to signify a defence strategy, and Google n-grams reflects the usage picking up significantly in the year it was introduced. At present, the capitalisation of the second word is still accordance with common name guidelines.
Even if the page should gradually transition toward a worldwide view of the subject, at best the present page should be moved to Total Defence (Singapore) when either a) other countries pages require the use of greater precision in the title it or b) this page has already transitioned to the general topic itself. Moving the page to a general topic "Total defence" is premature at the moment when it entirely deals with the Singaporean context. Seloloving ( talk) 10:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems to be a viable solution. I don’t have a settled view on this, but it is a problem that needs to be solved: see above. – Kaihsu ( talk) 11:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Kaihsu i have revert the move in accordance to WP:BRD. At the moment the entire page is about Singapore's Total Defence and should be reflected as such in the title until a content restructure by editors ( Seloloving as above) is completed, or an article for a global context is created. – robertsky ( talk) 15:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Additional rationale for the reversion: The content restructuring for "Total Defence (Singapore)" article should carry on from this article assuming that you are using this article as a jumppoint to retain Singapore specific details, which at the moment is majority, if not all of the current article. Moving to a generalised "Total defence" now will risk a disjoint page history between "Total Defence (Singapore)" and "Total defence". Kaihsu, if your intent to resolve the #Globalize issue with this move, congratulations. You have gotten the attention of Singaporean editors here to work on it. Cheers! – robertsky ( talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
At present, the concensus has been to shift this page to Total Defence (Singapore), with a capital 'D' in defence to signify the strategy/brand created by the government to signify it. However, I realised other countries might eventually have their own pages, and the lack the capitalisation on theirs might cause inconsistencies in page naming. Hence, I am proposing:
Option 1: Total Defence (Singapore)
Option 2: Total defence in Singapore
Option 1 is accordingly capitalised per the use of its proper name and majority of sources, while Option 2 describes the general strategy as used in Singapore and hence not capitalized, with future pages able to use the same theme. Seloloving ( talk) 03:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 08:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Total Defence → Total Defence (Singapore) – per talkpage discussion (two sections) to move to Total Defence (Singapore) to specify the page's focus on Singapore, compared to Total defence. Seloloving ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)