This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
So which do people think is easier to understand? 183.90.36.118 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 28 September 2019 (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.
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)
I was looking at the education section and I believe it needs an overhaul. Some information that should be included are
References
-- DreamLinker ( talk) 03:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please decapitalize "Bumboats" and add a link to the bumboat article. 96.75.222.117 ( talk) 23:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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. b uidh e 03:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[1] 20 January 2020
Palak Baid ( talk) 10:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
Please address these. Arman ( Talk) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ 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)
@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)
@ 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've rewritten it. Feinoa ( talk) 13:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
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. [1] 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. [2] [3] 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. [4]
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; [2] [3] 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
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 File:Coat-of-Arms-Malacca-Sultanate-330px.png | 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 |
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)
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
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.)
Independence from the
United Kingdom | |
---|---|
3 June 1959 | |
16 September 1963 | |
9 August 1965 | |
8 August 1967 |
Formation of the modern Republic | |
---|---|
6 February 1819 | |
2 August 1824 | |
• Straits Settlements | 14 August 1826 |
• Fall of Singapore | 15 February 1942 |
• Surrender of Japan | 2 September 1945 |
3 June 1959 | |
• Independence from the British Empire | 31 August 1963 |
16 September 1963 | |
9 August 1965 | |
22 December 1965 | |
8 August 1967 |
There is a clear consensus for:
- A. Singapore's population is culturally and religiously diverse
How should the lead mention Singapore's religious diversity? ( Link to previous discussion)
References
Please mention your preference in the survey section.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 12:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 [1] ( 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. [2] [3] 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. [4] [5]
Singapore is also referred to as the Garden City for its tree-lined streets and greening efforts since independence, [6] [7] and the Little Red Dot for how the island-nation is depicted on many maps of the world and Asia, as a red dot. [8] [9] [10]
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 [11] ( 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. [2] [3] 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". [12] [13] 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. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
Tiger7253 ( talk) 10:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
References
"Singapore, known variously as the 'Lion City,' or 'Garden City,' the latter for its many parks and tree-lined streets
{{
cite book}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
The Lion City. The Garden City. The Asian Tiger. The 'Fine' City. ¶ All venerable nicknames, but the longtime favourite is the 'Little Red Dot'
citizens of 'the little red dot'..
..with a characteristic mixture of pride and paranoia, Singapore adopted 'little red dot' as a motto
"Singapore, known variously as the 'Lion City,' or 'Garden City,' the latter for its many parks and tree-lined streets
{{
cite book}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
The Lion City. The Garden City. The Asian Tiger. The 'Fine' City. ¶ All venerable nicknames, but the longtime favourite is the 'Little Red Dot'
citizens of 'the little red dot'..
..with a characteristic mixture of pride and paranoia, Singapore adopted 'little red dot' as a motto
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. [1] Many murals depict scenes common to Singapore's cultural heritage. [2]
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. [1]
Schazjmd (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"lead" should instead be "led" 75.118.201.249 ( talk) 11:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 [1] NectarTheBee ( talk) 08:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can I Edit This? Thx RobertPerd ( talk) 09:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
References
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'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. /info/en/?search=Housing_and_Development_Board 47.208.27.40 ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Good solution, thank you 47.208.27.40 ( talk) 20:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tao70384 ( talk) 03:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)singapore has ten thousand purple hippos?
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 –
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 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) 23:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
@ 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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1] 2405:201:400A:880E:2998:DCE5:604E:299E ( talk) 09:34, 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
So which do people think is easier to understand? 183.90.36.118 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 28 September 2019 (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.
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)
I was looking at the education section and I believe it needs an overhaul. Some information that should be included are
References
-- DreamLinker ( talk) 03:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please decapitalize "Bumboats" and add a link to the bumboat article. 96.75.222.117 ( talk) 23:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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. b uidh e 03:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[1] 20 January 2020
Palak Baid ( talk) 10:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
Please address these. Arman ( Talk) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ 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)
@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)
@ 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've rewritten it. Feinoa ( talk) 13:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
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. [1] 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. [2] [3] 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. [4]
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; [2] [3] 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
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 File:Coat-of-Arms-Malacca-Sultanate-330px.png | 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 |
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)
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
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.)
Independence from the
United Kingdom | |
---|---|
3 June 1959 | |
16 September 1963 | |
9 August 1965 | |
8 August 1967 |
Formation of the modern Republic | |
---|---|
6 February 1819 | |
2 August 1824 | |
• Straits Settlements | 14 August 1826 |
• Fall of Singapore | 15 February 1942 |
• Surrender of Japan | 2 September 1945 |
3 June 1959 | |
• Independence from the British Empire | 31 August 1963 |
16 September 1963 | |
9 August 1965 | |
22 December 1965 | |
8 August 1967 |
There is a clear consensus for:
- A. Singapore's population is culturally and religiously diverse
How should the lead mention Singapore's religious diversity? ( Link to previous discussion)
References
Please mention your preference in the survey section.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 12:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 [1] ( 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. [2] [3] 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. [4] [5]
Singapore is also referred to as the Garden City for its tree-lined streets and greening efforts since independence, [6] [7] and the Little Red Dot for how the island-nation is depicted on many maps of the world and Asia, as a red dot. [8] [9] [10]
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 [11] ( 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. [2] [3] 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". [12] [13] 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. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
Tiger7253 ( talk) 10:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
References
"Singapore, known variously as the 'Lion City,' or 'Garden City,' the latter for its many parks and tree-lined streets
{{
cite book}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
The Lion City. The Garden City. The Asian Tiger. The 'Fine' City. ¶ All venerable nicknames, but the longtime favourite is the 'Little Red Dot'
citizens of 'the little red dot'..
..with a characteristic mixture of pride and paranoia, Singapore adopted 'little red dot' as a motto
"Singapore, known variously as the 'Lion City,' or 'Garden City,' the latter for its many parks and tree-lined streets
{{
cite book}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
The Lion City. The Garden City. The Asian Tiger. The 'Fine' City. ¶ All venerable nicknames, but the longtime favourite is the 'Little Red Dot'
citizens of 'the little red dot'..
..with a characteristic mixture of pride and paranoia, Singapore adopted 'little red dot' as a motto
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. [1] Many murals depict scenes common to Singapore's cultural heritage. [2]
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. [1]
Schazjmd (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"lead" should instead be "led" 75.118.201.249 ( talk) 11:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 [1] NectarTheBee ( talk) 08:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can I Edit This? Thx RobertPerd ( talk) 09:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
References
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'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. /info/en/?search=Housing_and_Development_Board 47.208.27.40 ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Good solution, thank you 47.208.27.40 ( talk) 20:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tao70384 ( talk) 03:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)singapore has ten thousand purple hippos?
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 –
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 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) 23:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
@ 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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Singapore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1] 2405:201:400A:880E:2998:DCE5:604E:299E ( talk) 09:34, 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)