Talk:Singapore/Archive 11

Article tag
, please explain your reasons for the POV Tags here. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Stuff in the lead is undue and needs to be trimmed. There is consensus about this here. Also in the current RFC, you can see and that none of the established editors have supported your views (and by extension, those of Warpslider and Shiok). They have agreed with me that the stuff is undue. That should give you a clue that you are wrong here and you clearly do not understand the policies and guidelines of how Wikipedia works. Which is why I am suggesting you to drop the stick and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Gallup World Polls RFC (2nd) will be what it is. I haven't the time to answer some of the points posted by responders yet, so we'll see. This section is about consensus on putting up the tags - and you do not have that consensus. Wrigleygum (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Please educate yourself about the policies. Go ahead and ask any admin if there is a problem with the lead. If there is, the tag stays. You need consensus to remove it, not put it on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the preceeding section, you wrote "You are the one who added that initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it" - which means you are implicating yourself. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to understand what is consensus? Can you even read the RFC? Did you realise that nobody supported your position? You have no understand of guidelines and I am honestly suggesting you to lay off. This is getting irritating. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, pls expand on what you mean here if its a tag - "You are the one who added that initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it". Wrigleygum (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read Template:POV? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We can get to that.
 * If your sentence is "You are the one who added the TAG initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it". If you said that to yourself... Wrigleygum (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not my sentence. I did not say that consensus is required for adding a tag. Now please do not divert and show which of the conditions at Template:POV have been satisfied that you have removed the tag. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you cannot justify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you in denial that is your sentence. What if I prove it? -Wrigleygum (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Find me the diff where I said "You are the one who added the TAG initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it". Go ahead show me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again... "You are the one who added that initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it". - This is your original sentence correct? I asked that you substitute that with Tag. Which means your sentence will incriminate yourself Wrigleygum (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

''I asked that you substitute that with Tag. Which means your sentence will incriminate yourself'' And therein lies your problem. We do not substitute words in other people's quotes and use it; we do not put words in people's mouth. My original comment was NOT about tags, it was about adding content. But of course, you are not experienced enough to understand that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An edit can be adding content, tags, templates etc - after you put it up and another editor disputes it, WP says that you must then go to consensus, that's about it. - Wrigleygum (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the guidelines are much more nuanced than that, a point which you seem unable to grasp. Tags can be added by anyone, and they can only be removed if certain conditions are true. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shall we agree its not you alone to decide when it is removed? Actually shouldn't be a question, just seeing your response. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It requires a consensus - so go ahead and get consensus (and no, your SPA friends don't count). Start an RFC for removing the tag and demonstrate that the community agrees with you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Body text edits
all the sources are supposed to be in the body text, but some may have been removed recently and I will see what is appropriate to restore. Other new citations are in [POV and WP:UNDUE in lead] above - to be added. As for 'incorrupt', all dictionaries seem to have the definition, except for Google's internal one I guess. Searching on "incorrupt government" or anything else will find many hits. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=incorrupt I think the word you're looking for is corruption-free.  Still, I do agree with LemonGirl that you would better serve Singapore by working towards a more balanced presentation.  Still don't see anything about its long-standing tenure on tax haven lists in the lead... (I guess some lists are to be preferred to others?) ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would agree. But where we have disagreement and the debate goes in circles, I would look to comparable cities/countries, as I pointed out in "Specific Issues above". For example, you can hardly find a major global city with negatives in them. The other way is to see if the metric - like tax haven - is quoted in the cities targetted. It should not be a double standard for Singapore and turning a blind eye for others. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * you can hardly find a major global city with negatives in them. Please see WP:SEWAGE. Your attitude seems to be that we should drag all articles down to the lowest common denominator. No we don't do that. If you feel some articles are unbalanced, go ahead and fix them. Don't bring that unbalance here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "You don't want to do that". Do not use "We". Find me some major cities, I will listen. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one who made the WP:OSE argument. You said "you can hardly find a major global city with negatives in them". That is not a good reason to remove negative information from here. In fact, this statement shows that you have no understanding of how NPOV works. On Wikipedia, NPOV is a core policy where we go by weight. If you feel other city articles are missing any negative information and you can justify that it wouldn't be undue, then go ahead and add that negative info. I would actually like to see your attempts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking you to find me some cities, like I showed you for the Nicknames. There are dozens and dozens of global cities. Why the parry :) Wrigleygum (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My goodness, we have a WP:CIR here lol. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrigleygum, you have completely missed the OSE argument here. Our policies of NPOV and weight reign supreme. Nothing is compromised before this. Just because other articles are badly written, doesn't mean this one has to be badly written either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can debate that but I'm focussed on my question to you first. Can you find some cities? After all I did do my part for Nicknames. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to ask? And how is that related to this? Mind explaining? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Finding major global cities with negatives in their lead. Just for fun. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Since it has no other purpose than your own amusement, and it is not related to article, you are welcome to do it at your leisure. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which basically means Singapore may be the only major city with a negative. That's your aim right? Wrigleygum (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which basically means Singapore may be the only major city with a negative. That's your aim right? Hahahahahaha, nice straw man you got there. Lol, did I stop you from adding anything negative to any other city? By all means, go ahead. Make them neutral, if you feel it improves the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually there is one which Nick put in. No matter, it will be a positive..like keeping it real they say. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked. You're right.  Nothing in the lead of Delaware, Panama, Luxembourg, Bahamas... only Monaco has the words "tax haven".  I retract my suggestion, which wasn't really that serious (though it felt more serious when I said it earlier, I admit, because I'd just read the articles).  Looking at those pages, though, I did notice the leads were all much shorter and treated history in broad brush strokes, before a short paragraph or two on today. Here it's the opposite 1 paragraph of 6 (or 7?) on history, which seems to start with Raffles o.O SashiRolls (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, do you think removal of links may be overdone? while I agree many links to common terms is excessive, easy access to supporting sub-articles is useful for additional information as well as references stated there. For example someone had a inline Citation-needed for "British built the large Singapore Naval Base as part of the defensive Singapore strategy." They could have found it in Singapore Strategy. This is History section but applies even more in the lead which most visitors will read. And cut down on excessive citations. best Shiok (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are any that you really feel should be added back, be bold! I've learned here that a lot of good work has been done in the Singapore category, and this page tried to cram as many links to that work as possible (unfortunately into the lead).  What I think would be more effective is something like what you see on the Buddhism page (among others):  a navbox that says "part of a series on".  I'm trying to work out the syntax for including a navbox/sidebar into the infobox...  for the moment without success. It looks like "part of a series on" would need to be set up in the templates, and I am not an experienced template editor, as this comment shows. ^^ Note also the problem of sourcing claims to wikipedia pages (which was quite prevalent in the lead prior to the delinking). Singapore topics SashiRolls (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just formatted your comment so as to avoid transcluding the template. My understanding has been that the lead should not have many links. What should be ideally kept are links to sub-topics which are highly relevant to the article. For example, Languages of Singapore is a highly relevant subtopic. The idea behind a lead is to keep it free of clutter and link only the most important topics. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * --Yes, think I will look to add some back. "^^ Note also the problem of sourcing claims to wikipedia pages (which was quite prevalent in the lead prior to the delinking)" - do you mind explaining this, not sure what you meant. Are those ^^ raised eyebrows, like the more common ^_^ ? :). Shiok (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Lemongirl942, and yes, Shiok, ^^, above, was a sign of my amusement at my own incompetence. Six commas, surely one could go... ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also the problem of sourcing claims to wikipedia pages (which was quite prevalent in the lead prior to the delinking) - Actually I was referring to this sentence. Do you mind explaining? Shiok (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. In the following text (which has since been modified): " [...] life expectancy, quality of life, personal safety, and housing. Although income inequality is high, 90% of resident households own their homes, and the country has one of the highest per capita incomes, with low taxes. "  the original author sourced the claims that S'pore scored highly on life expectancy, quality of life, personal safety, home ownership, per capita income, and low taxes by linking to Wikipedia pages. Since then someone has added the same sort of Wikipedia reference for the (Economist's) "Democracy Index", whereas a footnote to an RS (in all of the cases) would be more appropriate (although, since it is the lead, a reader should be able to assume that these links are in the body of the text below in principle, right?). SashiRolls (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Education Attainments - Explanation for removal unclear
, please explain your removal of the Education attainments which has been here for more than a year - "Remove per undue, recentism. Some aren't even rankings." - In particular why undue and recentism, since Singapore has been near the top for 2 decades.

Singaporean students consistently rank at or near the top of international education assessments:
 * In 2016, Singapore placed first in OECD's Program International Student Assessment (PISA) tests for Science, Math and Reading taken by 15-year-old students in 72 countries.  Shiok (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In 2016, Singapore placed first in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) conducted by IEA' taken by 4th- and 8th-graders. It has been ranked in the top three since 1995.
 * In 2015, Singapore topped the OECD's global school performance rankings, based on 15-year-old students' average scores in mathematics and science across 76 countries.
 * Singapore fared best in the 2015 International Baccalaureate exams, taken in 107 countries, with more than half of the world's 81 perfect scorers and 98% passing rate.
 * In 2016, Singapore placed 6th in the EF English Proficiency Index taken in 72 countries, the first Asian country to enter the top ten. -Shiok (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC). (Note: Citations updated by Wrigleygum (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC))


 * I made my edit removing the specific bullets because I felt the examples were overspecific. They refer to specific tests and specific years, and these do not provide a strong narrative. I kept the sources but generalised the statement to note strength in Maths and Science, which is concise but puts the point across without banging on about it. It would be preferable too to have a secondary source that discusses Singapore's movement in these rankings rather than the primary sources we have, but I think the primary sources do suffice if nothing else is found. CMD (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. This article should summarise existing knowledge and not cherry pick rankings for one particular year. And everything should be based on secondary third-party sources giving due weight.
 * The EF English Proficiency Index is a pretty unreliable poll which has problems with sampling. A few years back, Singapore was behind Malaysia in English proficiency. (And we wouldn't cherry pick and include that either)
 * The International Baccalaureate is simply performance in one particular exam in one year. This is precisely what is recentism.
 * As for the OECD, I added the Programme for International Student Assessment which is name of the specific test and ranking. We have to select and add only the most important stuff here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, I also removed that 2015 OECD thing from the lead (along with other unsourced stuff). The lead is supposed to summarise information. It already had the sentence It is ranked highly in education..., so we don't need to stuff more info. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of the EF English Proficiency Index before. Looking into it, simply saying "top 10" is misleading, as the index is not global. It critically doesn't include countries where English is the predominant home language. Include these pushes Singapore out of the top 10. All that aside, English in Singapore is at a high-level internationally. The question is whether this is already expressed in our paragraph on how Education takes place in English, or if something else is needed. CMD (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * These have been in the article for a long time and a staple in many country/city articles. For these education stats, whatever reasons you put across will not override that OECD, Times and similar organisations report some of the most important education metrics and closely followed by researchers. Specificity is preferred because they are objective and let the reader decide if they are significant. I shall be putting those back. As for EF Proficiency, major reliable sources I updated also report on them. As you well know, we are not suppose to interpret notability ourselves, just to verify that Reliable Sources report on them. However, since EF Proficiency was inserted recently (it was here a few days before she decided to remove it again) - I will set it aside first, leaving it here for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrigleygum (talk • contribs)
 * Bullet point educational rankings are a staple in country and city articles? No-one has overridden anyone here. I specifically said above for example, that "English in Singapore is at a high-level internationally". That hasn't been an argument made by anyone. We are supposed to interpret notability in terms of article content ourselves; it's the basis of WP:SummaryStyle and is through this a part of WP:GACR and WP:FACR. Further, I note that you just removed a Democracy Index ranking on the basis that it is similar to a Freedom House ranking, yet here you reinsert multiple rankings, with three consecutive sentences repeating Science and Maths stats. CMD (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As you well know, we are not suppose to interpret notability ourselves, just to verify that Reliable Sources report on them. We are definitely supposed to interpret what to add and how much to add - we just do this based on the quality of sources and the weight. I have never seen a list of educational ranks as a "staple" in any good/featured article. Essentially, we are supposed to summarise information. You can look at Australia for an example (though that could be improved and trimmed a bit as well). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the question of educational attainment, I think it is also important to mention educational caning. The high performance of S'pore and S Korea on tests like the PISA have always lead me to wonder about the role of strong discipline in giving students the ability to fill in bubbles correctly (or demonstrate evidence of skills, etc.)  In any case, the base article on S'pore should certainly mention the various forms of caning (judicial, educational, military...) or so it seems to me.  After all, it's pretty likely that S'pore is also #1 in bruised buttocks (boyz only, of course). ^^ (There's also lit. on Singapore math in pedagogic journals, but that might be a bit more for a different article... SashiRolls (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Judicial caning is mentioned in the article, in the Government and Politics section. It is true there is no mention of school caning: this is covered in the separate Caning in Singapore article. We could add a one-sentence mention of it in the Education section of this main article, if people think it appropriate. -- Alarics (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , I would oppose the removal strongly, there has been not a lot of discussion except the two of you. I have made my case for Statistics format where specificity of rankings is important instead of general statements to hide the high achievements. If this is your steadfast stand, we will need to go in dispute resolution. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is determined based on policies and guidelines, precedence in FA (peer reviewed) articles and to a limited extent on editor opinion. The relevant guideline over here is WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT (which btw is not negotiable). We try not to overemphasise one particular ranking. No one is hiding any high achievements but we are putting it in context - the sentence mentions that Singaporean students rank highly in Maths and Science. In fact, instead of the primary sources in the article which are examples of ranking for one year, there are better secondary third-party sources such as this (ABC) and this (FT) to support the statement. These sources analyse the primary rankings and summarise the information for us - and this is why we prefer to use secondary sources. If you look carefully, these sources also do a balanced job - they look at both the pros and the cons - which helps to have an NPOV article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You discussed as well, but did not reply to our responses to you for five days in which you were editing. Anyway, where do you get the idea that I am making "general statements to hide the high achievements"? I explicitly wrote "some of the best educated in the world". It's not the most professional of wording, but hiding high achievements? It's hard to achieve higher than best in the world. So no, clearly you have no idea what my steadfast stand is. CMD (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a lot going on including the RFC at that time so I left it. That's my impression of your recent bold removal as it took out these stats while leaving behind more obvious unessential ones, ie buses operators, cabs so forth. Though I did see your restore of 'Singapore model', education is the nation's pillar - so instead of a general "one of the best", the data points are objective numbers for readers to decide for themselves the significance of the attainment. A recent update last week has confirmed similar results going back more than 2 decades. I am updating citations with the new TIMSS reports and reinstating it. Bullets can be discussed but I think it makes it more readable. Please do not remove again. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to adding that, so I suggest whoever wants to add it, should demonstrate consensus for adding it here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I was the one who removed the bus and transport details, days after education was removed. Wrigleygum, the news also just reported that we had yet another report from OECD-PISA that Singapore students again did the best in all tests (every 3 years). Add this to the Timss report last week. These are not small matters and we should be entitled to have it specifically in the article - no summary please! It is quite amazing to see the few people here trying to deny the country's achievements. Shiok (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks will copyedit a bit. Wrigleygum (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Languages in the lead
"There are four official languages on the island: Malay, Tamil, Mandarin and English. Since English is used on the island as a common language, many Singaporeans are at least bilingual. Its cultural diversity is reflected in its extensive ethnic "hawker" cuisine and major festivals—Chinese, Malay, Indian, Western—which are all national holidays." - It is crowded. The sentence - "Since English is the common language, Singaporeans are at least bilingual" - You mean you agree with this. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Languages are an encyclopaedic topic and we have added them to the lead. The lead is crowded because a lot of random rankings have been added. If you remove those, it will be OK. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is crowded, but I find it difficult to see how the situations surrounding languages is more expendable as part of a summary of Singapore than a description of a particular cuisine form (which is "extensive"?) and a categorisation of national holidays. CMD (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply because it is in the Infobox. I see someone removed the reference to Singapore being one of the highest income countries too, it's also in infobox so I didn't bother about it.
 * The sentence - "Since English is the common language, Singaporeans are at least bilingual" - You have not replied if you agree with this grammar. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The core of every wikipedia article is the prose. Infoboxes, templates, images, and anything else merely complements the prose. I've restored your wording, although it lacks serious context due to the lack of demographic information in the lead (when and where did that go?). CMD (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. It wasn't there when I combed through.  SashiRolls (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. I admit that was a bit of OR in my edit, sorry, the current text is better!  (When I was there 30 years ago, multilingualism was more prevalent than today apparently:  "After 50 years of language policy and language changes, Singaporeans are still bilingual. But we now see a difference between generations. The older generation is multilingual, like the norm used to be, while the younger generation is bilingual, usually with English and one “mother tongue".    SashiRolls (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So much unsourced (seeking consensus)
I'm evahso-slightly horrified by how much of this article is "factual" statements without ICs. I just got rid of one particularly-egregious synthetic sentence (along with it's lede twin), but there's a high background radiation of plenty more where that came from.

So, seeking consensus, I see three options: I feel it would be lame to merely plonk a refimprove hatnote. I hesitate to litter the article with s. Should we simply be bold and excise unref'ed statements? ... richi (hello) 10:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Richi, Just on the AAA ratings, the citations are in the body and have been there since before I came around. Have you not checked? What's wrong? Just glancing through, the references in the body seems extensive. Topics added by me has references except the "core values" found earlier - so that sentence has been taken out. And I added more recently in this Talk page above. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Naturally I did check; please AGF. Of course, I might have missed something. Perhaps you'd let me know how we can ref the "10-year" sentence I removed. ... richi (hello) 11:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IC, will check myself, all the refs? Actually I would encourage anyone to add CN anywhere needed. I think few editors has checked the latest year's data on many topics. Even the editor working on the 'foreign reserves' table has stopped a year back. Wrigleygum (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the data we needed and its more than a decade - received highest credit ratings since 1995 - 2003.
 * [www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/rating]. To check your own/other countries - replace 'Singapore' with 'Country'
 * Agency	-Rating	-Outlook	-Date
 * Fitch,	AAA,	Stable, 	May 14 2003
 * Moody's,	Aaa,	Stable, 	Jun 14 2002
 * S&P,	AAA,	Stable, 	Mar 06 1995
 * - Wrigleygum (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * awesome work. I suspect we can't use the news cite, due to it not being WP:V. But the table and link will be very useful. I'll refactor the earlier text to suit. Thanks again ... richi (hello) 14:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Took me a while too! Wrigleygum (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, tradingeconomics.com is WP:SPB'ed, so can't be used ... richi (hello) 14:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting this. The problems are not only with the unsourced stuff, but also with the quality of the references. I have seen a bunch of unreliable SPS used all over the article. I was thinking of improving this to a GA, but the refs will require significant cleanup. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you'll note I've started working from the bottom up. In verifying some of the refs, I'm finding several that either don't support the text, or that are mere government PR, which doesn't even count as a PRIMARY ... richi (hello) 14:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it's good work, a chore for many editors to maintain. Thanks. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for digging that up! I feel we're getting somewhere ... richi (hello)
 * my pleasure, thanks for the positive attitude! SashiRolls (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Richi, what is the point of flooding unsourced paragraphs with multiple cn tags? It is clear the paragraph is unsourced, and the unnecessary proliferation of tags makes the paragraph harder to read. CMD (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, it does make it harder to read. Which is why I hesitated to do it. Two other editors encouraged me to have a go, though. So I started with a few grafs near the bottom. Feel free to add your opinion to the RFC above ... richi (hello) 21:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not proposing to add any more CNs. I wanted to highlight the extent of the problem, as I see it ... richi (hello) 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree unsourced material should be tagged, but you're effectively just adding more tags to things that are already tagged. It doesn't add more extent, just makes the article harder to read for no benefit. CMD (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Government and Politics, Lead
These are WP:RELIABLE sourced content that's been in the Lead section since last year. Please explain fully why you wish to remove them. An "Undue" in your edit summary is not enough. In the meantime, it stays in the article. Please do not remove it again.

"Singapore is noted for its effective, pragmatic and incorrupt governance and civil service, which together with its rapid development policies, is widely cited as the "Singapore model". Gallup polls shows 84% of its residents expressed confidence in the national government, and 85% in its judicial systems—one of the highest ratings recorded. Singapore has significant influence on global affairs relative to its size, leading some analysts to classify it as a middle power. It is ranked as Asia's most influential city and 4th in the world by Forbes." ---Shiok (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Shiok (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose: All else being equal, the length of time a passage remains in an article is immaterial. Content in the lede should conform to WP:MOSLEAD unless there's a darn good reason ... richi (hello) 23:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, what do you mean? It's not in the lede ... richi (hello) 23:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Richi, itis alright to oppose but there has to be good reasons for sourced content. Everyone have an opinion what's important to them agree? Shiok (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, no. Decisions should be made by consensus, guided by established policy. IMHO, WP:BRD is an apposite discussion in this case, but see also its #Alternatives section ... richi (hello) 00:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey you're fast. Well that's what I meant. Consensus taking into account everyone's opinion. Shiok (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose This was recently added on 19 November and I removed it. The sourcing is pretty bad here. I mean the Forbes is a contributor article and we consider that equivalent to SPS. So is the Huffpost article. Not everything that is sourced has to be included. We determine what goes in by the quality of sources, determining WP:DUE weight and ensuring there is no WP:OR. The gallup poll is entirely sourced to a primary source and adding that metric here would be giving undue weight to one particular poll. (What is due and undue can be difficult to understand at first - this is something that is learnt gradually). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Content is not simply put into the article, let alone the lead, simply because it is reliable sourced. Something being sourced is not an argument for inclusion. (Furthermore the middle power bit isn't sourced there, but again that's besides the point.) That being said, I can see some merit to the points behind the text, and I'm sure they should be somewhere in the article. A mention in the lead I'm less sure about, but it would depend on how it fits into the rest of the lead. Either way however, the prose above should not go in. It is poorly written and peacocky. CMD (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * CMD, do you see the changes that Richi did as sufficient for the time being to keep it in the body? Or can you rephrase it so that we leave it at the place I inserted. There is at least wrigleygum and myself here who wants it and I don't see how you can reject that the mention of Singapore model and its influence is undue. There may well be other sources as well, end even the Australian AAA article above mentions the SG model for China and India. Shiok (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what changes Richi made, I'm focusing on the formulation on this talkpage. In any case, that section as it stands shouldn't be in the body. The various salient points could be, but separated out into places they're relevant rather than as a series of platitudes. CMD (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * for clarity, this was my attempt at compromise. But it's moot now, because it didn't gain consensus ... richi (hello) 12:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

*Keep. strike duplicate !vote - OP is already a vote Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC) These are long-standing recognitions Singapore as received over decades. It is just a matter of debate whether it goes into the lead. Just how did "Telegraph" reported Forbes story wrong? There's no retraction to date and their reputation as a credible newspaper would be at stake. Found a few other sources easily. Shiok (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Forbes source is a contributor article and these (or any reprints of these) are not considered reliable source. This is because it is simply an opinion of the writer - and not endorsed by Forbes or subject to editorial control at Forbes. You can read the article in the Independent to understand the difference. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You may or may not have a point. But you should wait for Consensus. I don't like the way you are reverting before discussion. Furthermore you are disregarding Richi's edits on the same content Shiok (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You added this on 19th November. Consensus has to be demonstrated for adding content to the article. You are the one who need to demonstrate consensus for keeping these here. I am strongly asking you to self revert otherwise I will consider reporting you to AN3. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid The Telegraph lost its reputation here in the UK a few years ago, IMHO. It's better than WP:DAILYMAIL, but heading in the same junk, clickwhore direction. And reports like these don't help. Anyway, its report on the city ranking is thoroughly confusing: It says Singapore was in 5th place, not 4th, and implied Singapore was 2nd in Asia, after Tokyo. But then it copies the correct list below the fold. It doesn't even cite the Forbes article. However, the Independent reportage is much better: Rather than just say "Forbes" it has a decent go of attributing the contributors, quoting their bona fides.
 * As for whether a Forbes "contributor" article is a RS, it depends. I do have some insider knowledge of how Forbes operates, and I can say there are plenty of Forbes articles that most definitely are not RS! Full disclosure: I was the managing editor for one such Forbes microsite, 2012–2015; I would never permit WP to cite any of "my" articles. But this contributor is "the R.C. Hobbs Professor of Urban Studies at Chapman University in California," and his collaborators are said to be an urban geographer, a former Accenture analyst, and a demographer. I dare say it's also in his book (ISBN 978-1572841727).
 * Finally, as I said in my edit summary, I tried to seek a compromise, but failed. We're now back to the D of WP:BRD: Please do not edit-war by reverting it back into the article. Seek WP:Consensus ... richi (hello) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , you made a good argument and I do appreciate it. It is more than any others have done here so far, esp by including the background material. Will go through it later. I missed your edit summary earlier so copied here it here - WP:Verified refs to ensure text matched. Ranking was not "by Forbes", but by a contributor (see WP:DAILYMAIL). Telegraph reported Forbes story wrong. NatGeo paywalled.). Not sure what "but by a contributor (see WP:DAILYMAIL)" has to do with Forbes. Does the contributor work for Dailymail, or the later published his work in the same way as Forbes? Why would so many other RS pick up the story or quote for it if this is the case do you think? Wrigleygum (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, but I don't think I'm saying anything other than restating how WP works, as are User:Lemongirl942 and CMD. If you read WP:DAILYMAIL, you'll see the consensus view on Forbes "contributors"&mdash;it's nothing to do with The Mail, per se. I'm disappointed you're finding it hard to follow this discussion, but I do assume you're making a sincere effort to help. Why not try a WP:Wikibreak? ... richi (hello) 17:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , there has been a long standing consensus that Forbes contributor columns are generally considered WP:SPS. In addition, unless it is by a staff, it is considered the contributor's opinion (not a Forbes ranking). For country articles, we tend to rely on high quality sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Richi, I'm just reading your link reports like these - There are comments in Talk like "Why is this project page even allows?". It is not active and there is no rating on the 'Impact Scale' - some sort of wp community assessment apparently. Shiok (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that London includes exactly the same "Most influential city" statistic and Forbes attribution in its article.
 * In 2014 Forbes magazine ranked London as the most influential city in the world. In February 2014 London was ranked as the European City of the Future in the 2014/15 list by FDi Magazine. - Wrigleygum (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Please note that London includes exactly the same "Most influential city" statistic and Forbes attribution in its article - In 2014 Forbes magazine ranked London as the most influential city in the world.
 * So do not place a double standard for Singapore, which I think a number of opposers are.


 * - Wrigleygum (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC) — Wrigleygum (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Which opposers have argued to include the statistic in the London article? CMD (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what we call a WP:OSE and WP:SEWAGE analogy. It brings stuff down to the least common denominator. That's not what we are supposed to do. None of us here have argued to keep that in London., if you feel that is double standards, try helping to clean up the other article. But just because another article is badly written doesn't mean this one has to be as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * remove WP:PROMO and putrid at that. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * remove This has already been addressed in the previous RfC. My opinion remains unchanged concerning the Gallup poll for the reasons I mentioned there. I believe we also have discussed whether "incorrupt" is a word or not and whether it means what we think it means in this context...  SashiRolls (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way this is not a RfC proposal, and it's just Shiok asking Lemongirl942 for clarification, why everyone is voting? NgYShung  huh? 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? informal voting and discussion. -Wrigleygum (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter, but it's just a discussion between two editors, not a proposal. NgYShung  huh? 07:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External country gateway links
I do not see the relevant explanation in WP:ELNO regarding "one" external link per country. Can you paste it here. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * read the very first line, the bolded text. Please stop adding excess promotional links to official Singapore sites.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" - I see it. There are many country articles that does not follow this the last I checked. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be far more convincing to argue something on its merits, rather than just saying other places have it. What links are under consideration, and what are the merits of these links? CMD (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or to look at the existing ones and explain why they are not relevant, which was not done. Wrigleygum (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just checking a few OECD countries :- Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, France, UK, New Zealand... - Seems most of them may not be in line, many with official Presidential sites, Prime Ministerial sites, Tourism, History, Ministries, etc. In the U.S., we have a few under various sections Government, Hostory, Maps. Which of these are allowed or otherwise, do you think? Wrigleygum (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog pointed to a guideline, which if you click on the bolded text like they suggested takes you to a section saying "Normally, only one official link is included." That seems pretty "done" in my reading.
 * I don't see what the relevancy of the OECD is to Wikipedia's external links, but again, that's WP:OSE. If they're not in line, you can fix them. Again, you have not articulated an argument for a link to be included, nor even noted which links you want included. CMD (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CMD, you can find any guidelines/essays (which is not policy) but for some like ELNO, clearly not many editors bother about it. Then OSE is no longer relevant to cite. I wouldn't care much about these links myself as I don't think many visitors click on them. But when you are target particular articles to make a case, it bothers me and I think the community would frown on that. And I'm keen to find out, should we go to some dispute resolution or forum for wider comments? Wrigleygum (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your repeated assertions that editors are somehow targeting or singling out this page for whatever purpose are unfounded, while also not moving content discussions forward. CMD (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I quite expected that answer but it's a fair assumption. You have the time and wide interest, so what's your reason for not 'correcting' other articles (that's practically all of them by the way). Not sure you'd succeed? Too time-consuming? Wrigleygum (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't perused my contributions. As for other editors, much like yourself, they put their time (limited) and energy (limited) into where they wish to. If you continue with these assertions, do not expect the arguments you put forward alongside them to be given much credence. CMD (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I have looked at your wide contributions indeed (Jytdog's too), and that's the reason I asked. Now that I've highlighted where ELNO fails miserably - Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, France, UK, New Zealand... As 'world editors', I was expecting some editors to be happy given a list of relevant articles to work on using the ELNO principle, but not a single country above is worthy? Wrigleygum (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Answer expected but meaningless if everyone does it. Copy:-You have the time and wide interest, so what's your reason for not 'correcting' other articles (that's practically all of them by the way). Not sure you'd succeed? Too time-consuming? Wrigleygum (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Go fix them yourself if you like. You are a Wikipedian when you edit here. You are responsible for editing according to the policies and guidelines. That is your first interest when you log in here. I am done with this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignored my question. Maybe he has no answer, after being given a great list to work on but turns a blind eye. -Wrigleygum (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

your arguments are what we call WP:SEWAGE/WP:OSE. If you feel that other articles are problematic, go ahead and improve them. What's your reason for not improving them? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you turn a blind eye, you might fall into sewage. That should be my last engagement with this person. Wrigleygum (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
So I assumed you changed it. If not formation, then Independence from UK or colonial rule is more appropriate since the list starts from there.Shiok (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That field isn't meant to describe the list, but to note when the country became a country. (We probably don't need the 1819 date, but that's a different question.) Singapore set off on its own state when it separated from Malaysia. "Independence from UK" is not appropriate, as it's not what happened. CMD (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we need 1819 colonial founding date. It's 144 years of British rule vs 2 yrs in Malaysia. You are putting forward a novel idea. But if the list exist, it needs to reflect the longer rule of the British. Shiok (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, Singapore did become independent from UK by declaring itself so - just before merger with Malaysia. Shiok (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel the idea that Singapore became independent from Malaysia is a novel idea, I don't know what I can say. That section is primarily to show when Singapore became sovereign. (With some leeway for multiple events demonstrating the how.) That occurred in 1965. CMD (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not have to mention United Kingdom or Msia in section title at all, they are already in the events list. Just 'Independence' will do. Shiok (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sovereignty_type parameter is about the current sovereign status of the country. The "Independence from Malaysia" is fine there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Current sovereign status of Singapore is an 'independent sovereign', so the Title should simply be 'Independence', covering both events of independence from the UK and Msia which are listed. Don't need you to insert your country name in the title. Also you don't have to comment further - wait to see if CMD intends to re-revert or comment. Shiok (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't need to insert your country name in the title, 'Independence' covers both the UK and Msia
 * This seems just fine. What's wrong here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sovereignty
Please work out your content dispute here and stop disrupting the article. Thanks.

United Kingdom
 * sovereignty_type  = Independence
 * established_event1 = British colonisation
 * established_date1 = 6 February 1819
 * established_event2 = Self-government
 * established_date2 = 3 June 1959
 * established_event3 = Independence from
 * established_date3 = 31 August 1963
 * established_event4 = Merger with Malaysia
 * established_date4 = 16 September 1963
 * established_event5 = Expulsion from Malaysia
 * established_date5 = 9 August 1965

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * From the introduction of Tan Tai Yong's Creating Greater Malaysia: "The making of Malaysia was an important watershed in the post-war history of SE Asia.  It marked the end of the British Empire in SE Asia:  Singapore and the Borneo territories of Sarawak and North Borneo [...] achieved their political independence through merger with Malaya [...] to constitute the new state of Malaysia."


 * Not sure I understand why this is leading to EW... SashiRolls (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea about the rationale behind this edit and this edit. The Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 is very clear that it became a "sovereign state" in 1965. Prior to that it was never a sovereign state. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * SashiRolls, he's right and obvious that one word covers the 2 main events in the list. Your finding is not disputed but immaterial. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking back it's hard to imagine that that the Tenku once feared that Singapore would become Cuba. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You're not looking back hard enough! It's looking at the present that makes it hard to imagine.
 * Anyway, what's the argument about not noting in the sovereignty section of the infobox that Singapore became an independent country when it left Malaysia? Saying there are "two main events" is misleading. There are many things that made Singapore what it is, but there is one event that tops all others in terms of Singaporean independence, and that is the event of its independence. CMD (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother about it before but he is right about using a single word. Even if there is only independence from UK (and supposing Malaysia event never happened), 'Independence' as section title is concise and nuff. What is in the 'present that makes it hard to imagine' btw? -your take. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Singapore has been much more successful than Cuba in quite a few ways! CMD (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For me it is very clear. Singapore became an independent sovereign state only after Independence from Malaysia - and there are citations for that. I don't see citations saying that Singapore became an independent sovereign state in 1963. The Infobox template very clearly mentions |sovereignty_type =  So if someone wants to debate that, please do so at Template talk:Infobox country. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No. It should be pretty simple:  to join a sovereign federation, the member parts must themselves be sovereign.SashiRolls (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * this is difficult as there is a history that is not binary, and infoboxes don't deal well with complication. Lemongirl, you are not disputing that Singapore became independent after the brits left, then joined malaysia, then became independent of malyasia, are you?  and am i correct that in your view, the infobox should discuss current status only  (so is now independent, and attained this independence after leaving malaysia)... is that right?  Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that presentation. While there is a legal argument to make (and has been made), Singapore's departure from the UK was not to become an independent state, as would be assumed with the note of becoming independent. It was to formalise the transition. I've seen similar arguments deployed for Sabah and Sarawak, and they're similarly unconvincing. Treating a legal transitional phase as a period of sovereign independence is misleading, and other sources do not accord that period any importance whatsoever. Similar arguments are sometimes deployed for Sabah and Sarawak, but the reality and the way other sources discuss it is that the importance of 1963 was the transfer from British sovereignty to Malaysian sovereignty.
 * As for keeping a single word "Independence", why? It is less information for no purpose. The box allows for two things, to present the circumstances of sovereignty (ie. independence from Malaysia) and then to note the time of this occurrence (with additional dates if there are other important parts of the process to consider). CMD (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I am just trying to sort the arguments.  So you and (maybe) Lemongirl see the separation from Britain not as "independence" as not real but a transition state.  So what refs do we have?


 * lemongirl brought the Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 as a ref, but it doesn't speak to whether or not singapore had been independent before - it just says going forward, it will be.  (what a concise, elegant treaty btw!).  So it doesn't support the claim that there was no prior period of independence, unless I missed something.
 * above, the following was brought: Tan Tai Yong's Creating Greater Malaysia:  "The making of Malaysia was an important watershed in the post-war history of SE Asia.  It marked the end of the British Empire in SE Asia:  Singapore and the Borneo territories of Sarawak and North Borneo [...] achieved their political independence through merger with Malaya [...] to constitute the new state of Malaysia." cited to .  So that is ambiguous, just reading that.  Right?  It clearly getting free of the UK but gaining independence through the merger supports the transition state thing.
 * So let me ask, who has refs that address the whole 1960s period and actually come out and discuss two periods of pure independence for Singapore per se, or say explicitly that there was only the one, beginning from separation from Malaysia?  Neither side has provided definitive refs.  The way to resolve this to actually bring your refs. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking for an explicit note of only one period of separation is a bit like asking for proof there are no black swans. I would contend however that a perusal of sources will show few devote any time to the purported first period. This official government website for example, ignores it, and fixates upon 31 August instead as the initial planned date for the formation of Malaysia. In fact, as the source used to support the first independence claim notes, the 15 day stretch was an unplanned administrative limbo, due to the previously agreed date for British relinquishment being unchanged when the date for Malaysian formation was pushed back. CMD (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You either have reliable sources that support your claim that there was only the one period of independence or you don't. this ref is ambiguous. IT says "On August 31, Lee declared Singapore to be independent with the PAP government to act as trustees for fifteen days until the formation of Malaysia on September 16. " and it says "On August 9... in a televised press conference, Lee declared Singapore a sovereign, democratic, and independent state"   That actually supports the claim of the two-date people.  So really, if you have great sources please bring them.  They need to directly support the argument that there was no initial independence (it will do that by not using the word to describe that period).  Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the crux of the Black Swan fallacy. However, my argument was not that there was not an initial period of independence. My argument was that the two periods are not remotely equivalent (hence my mention of the presentation), as the first was linked to the move into Malaysia, whereas the second was a movement into a new permanent situation. The 15 day period was a transitional phase, which is not mutually exclusive as to whether or not its independence was real or not.
 * The sources I provided present the two situations extremely differently, as in the second was important whereas the first was not, as do all sources I've read. This book on Singaporean law devotes a single sentence to this period and does not mention it as having any impact, as opposed to the merger with Malaysia and separation from Malaysia which both had extensive legal ramifications. Singapore actually obtained its constitution as a State of Malaysia while still under British rule, and thus had this state constitution during the transition period. "Under the Malaysia Agreement, which was concluded on the 9th of July 1963, it was agreed...the State of Singapore would be federated...to form the Federation of Malaysia...A new State Constitution was granted to Singapore to effect this change in status...Malaysia Day which fell on 31st August 1963 to coincide with Merdeka Day was designated as the day in which the new Federation would come into being...deferred this to the 16th of September...On the 31st of August, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew unilaterally declared that 'Singapore shall forever be part of the sovereign, democratic and independent State of Malaysia,' and the island enjoyed an anomalous 15 days of full independence before becoming part of Malaysia...In August 1965, Prime Minister Lee was summoned to Kuala Lumpur and informed of the Tunku's decision to expel Singapore from the Federation and on 9th August 1965, Singapore's independence was proclaimed...the second enactment was the Constitution of Singapore Amendment Act which was passed by the Singapore Parliament on the 22nd of December 1965, retrospective to 9th August 1965...this Act also changed the relevant nomenclatures to bring the Constitution in line with Singapore's independence status." If you'll excuse a reference to a primary source, the speech LKY gave mentioned in the library of congress source in the sentence "On August 31, Lee declared Singapore to be independent with the PAP government to act as trustees for fifteen days until the formation of Malaysia on September 16" was covered by The Strait's Times at the time. It was given at a Malaysia Day ceremony, and was a call for independence through Malaysia rather than independence alone. "We look upon ourselves as trustees for the Federal Government in these 15 days. We will exercise these powers in the interests of Malaysia...There will be no change in the overall power situation or in the policy of Government during this fortnight of prelude to Malaysia...by his agreement to postpone the official date for Malaysia for 15 days...in fifteen days, we will raise officially the new flag of the nation."
 * Regarding content, it is incorrect and misleading to portray the 15 days as something other than a transition. They were not planned, and had no impact on Singapore's history. All sources place Singapore's independence as occurring in 1965 when it separated from Malaysia, and none credit the 15 day limbo with any significance. I would argue further that the sources treat it as a mere curious factoid, important for its symbolism regarding Malaysia rather than for independence itself. This should be reflected in the prose and the infobox. The initial dispute here is whether or not to note Malaysia as the country Singapore became independent from. I would actually go further and suggest that 31 August 1963 not appear in the infobox, reflecting its consideration as very minor in other sources. CMD (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.  Folks supporting a first "independence" for Singapore ''per se", what are your sources and arguments? Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm abusing the outdent but it seemed logical here. Thanks for the response above CMD! The book I cited above (Tan Tai Yong, Creating "Greater Malaysia") has a long section called "Singapore: Independence through Merger" (pp. 31-48) which makes up roughly half of Chapter 2. Basically, the British wanted to get out of SE Asia, and viewed the federation as their ultimate goal: independence through federation. (Basically meaning they would no longer have to pay for S'pore's defense given that S'pore was self-governing since 1959 (see Swan Sik Ko above) (but did not pay for its own defense). It is admittedly a tricky question... granted the two-week period is in some senses trivial, but being freed from British colonial influence was certainly not.   In '57 Marshall resigned as Chief Minister because he could not convince the British government to grant "full internal self government by April 1957".  The sticking point was foreign policy and defense.  Just a quick citation before returning to reading:  "[B]oth Marshall and Lim [ndlr:  Chief Ministers 1955-1959] had made repeated overtures to the Tunku, urging him to consider merger with Singapore.  To them, this was the only way in which Singapore could realistically convince the British to concede independence to the Colony." (p.35) I think that sentence is what you asked for, Jytdog? SashiRolls (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. so a couple of nuances of the word "independence" are coming into play here. one is in the sense of "self-determination" (i.e. "independence from X"...not a colony which was a status imposed on it) and the other is "standing on its own".   i think everybody agrees that both of these things happened and both are ~kinds~ of independence? Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, so what's wrong (technically, I mean) with using the optional "from" parameter for one and not for the other, Lemongirl942?

|sovereignty_type =  <!--Brief description of country/territory's status ("Independence [from...]")  --SashiRolls (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no "from" parameter in Template:Infobox country. What are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls is correct to note that independence through merger was the mantra of the day, but that again points to 16 September as the important date, not 31 August. Regarding nuances of the word independence, Singapore obtained internal self-government in 1959 after some preparation, not 1963. Self-determination is a bit harder, but they had the merger referendum in 1962. The Malaysia Agreement was signed on 9 July 1963 by the Singaporean government (among others), under which they were going to move towards Malaysia. On 31 August 1963, although official merger had been delayed, the constitution of Singapore as a State of Malaysia still kicked in, so for the short period of independence they were governed under the State Constitution noting them as part of Malaysia. Are you really independent if you're legally obliged to cede sovereignty or are only holding sovereignty in trust? Fun questions for alternate historians I suppose. The point is that independence through Malaysia happened on 16 September, not 31 August.
 * Another consideration which I haven't brought up is that despite its fait accompli mention now, the declaration may not have been legal. It certainly wasn't recognised by the British and Malayan governments at the time, but the dispute never escalated, because, in the end it was for such a short time and didn't change anything that it was inconsequential for Singapore. (Although perhaps it made the Malayan leaders dislike LKY a bit more. Who knows!) CMD (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Gonna use the outdent here, sorry. The way I see it, the 1963 was a unilateral declaration, not recognised by anyone. 1965 is widely cited as the "full independence" and I would prefer to keep it as the sovereignty type. Basically, my parameters would look like these
 * 1) The 1963 declaration of independence was a unilateral declaration (See quotes attached to refs)  (and it should be stated as such). I am not aware if it was officially recognised by the UK/Malaya. A Newspaper article shows that British and the federal government in Malaya questioned the validity. Another source seems to say that the Federal Government protested while the British ignored the illegality.
 * 2) By 1963, independence was granted, but only as part of the new Federation of Malaya. After two troubled years, Singapore was expelled and became a fully independent state in 1965. The phrase "fully independent" seems to be used for the 1965 event. In addition, most other sources seem to be only mentioning the 1965 event as the independence day.
 * sovereignty_type  = Independence from Malaysia
 * established_event1 = Founding of modern Singapore
 * established_date1 = 6 February 1819
 * established_event2 = Self-government
 * established_date2 = 3 June 1959
 * established_event3 = Unilateral declaration of independence from United Kingdom
 * established_date3 = 31 August 1963
 * established_event4 = Merger with Malaysia
 * established_date4 = 16 September 1963
 * established_event5 = Expulsion from Malaysia
 * established_date5 = 9 August 1965

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for posting this. I've read the report in the Straits Times, and also the comment in John Drysdale's book about the Straits Times

"... I must pay tribute to the generally high quality of reporting in The Straits Times, especially, and to the thoroughness of the verbatim reports on the proceedings in successive Singapore legislatures. This does not mean that the newspapers are without bias. Far from it.  But if, as in the case of The Straits Times, the bias is consistent and recognizable (support during colonial times for conservative political leaders and for European business interest, for example), this can be allowed for."
 * I have also been struck by the use of the term "Federation of Malaya." Malaysia, as such, does not seem to have existed prior to Singapore's independence from the UK, right?
 * My personal "conclusion": I think this could be more thoroughly treated in the article rather than in the infobox, which, in the end is not a place for nuance. The sun can set on the Malaysian Empire in this infobox if we think that's best.  Still: wasn't the US Declaration of Independence unilateral too? ^^  SashiRolls (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this possible?

SashiRolls (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * sovereignty_type  = Independence from United Kingdom
 * established_event1 = Founding of modern Singapore
 * established_date1 = 6 February 1819
 * established_event2 = Self-government
 * established_date2 = 3 June 1959
 * established_event3 = Unilateral declaration of independence from United Kingdom
 * established_date3 = 31 August 1963
 * sovereignty_type  = Independence from Malaysia
 * established_event1 = Merger with Malaysia
 * established_date1 = 16 September 1963
 * established_event2 = Expulsion from Malaysia
 * established_date2 = 9 August 1965
 * This Straits Times article is another I found interesting, if anyone else wishes to view it.
 * I don't think the above formulation is technically possible, but I would like to note again that this infobox places the two moments as equivalent when they were completely different (and reliable sources do not treat them similarly). In Singaporean history, that brief period of history is an interesting footnote, and as such doesn't belong in the infobox. Unlike with the USA example, it's impossible to ascertain if Singapore was even independent. The US of course fought for years, arguably until 1812, to cement their claim, and Singapore's was unrecognised by the UK and Malaya. LKY wasn't trying to declare independence equivalent to that of the US, and it isn't like his actual independence was tested in those two weeks. Malaysia had been set up officially in the months before after all, with LKY a driving force behind it.
 * SashiRolls, what strikes you about "Federation of Malaya"? CMD (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That article seems to assert without ambiguity that S'pore had power over its foreign affairs during those two weeks, which means they could have unilaterally chosen not to enter into the former Federation of Malaya, if they didn't want to give up their power over foreign affairs by entering a larger federation to be called Malaysia in two weeks time. But, again, it's The Straits Times in 1963, (cf. say, The Washington Post in 2016 ^^) What would your proposed infobox be, CMD?


 * What I found confusing was the primary documents at Federation of Malaya (where sometimes it's Federation of Malaysia, Malaysia, Federation of Malaya): "In 1963, the Federation was reconstituted as "Malaysia" when it federated with the British territories of Singapore, Sarawak, and North Borneo; a claim to the latter territory was maintained by the Philippines."


 * SashiRolls (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that Singapore could have pulled out of the Malaysia agreement is unsupported. Contrast that article discussing LKY's claims with the article that Lemongirl posted above, where the British and Malayan authorities shoot down LKY's assertion of having control of foreign affairs. "Any transfer of powers from the British Government to the Government of Singapore required an Order-in-Council by the Queen, and that no such order had been made".
 * My preferred infobox would have three dates: 3 June 1959, 16 September 1963, and 9 August 1965. Each of those are moments when Singapore had a status change that led towards it becoming an independent country.
 * Presumably the context depends on the specific primary document. I've read some debate as to whether Malaysia is an expansion of Malaya, or a whole new country. To my understanding it's mostly seen as a continuation of Malaya with a different name, but of course some argue otherwise. CMD (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Found 2 present-day refs affirming Singapore's independence from UK:
 * "..gained independence from Britain in 1963" - Yahoo.
 * "..propelled Singapore from what was a southeast Asian backwater after independence from Malaysia in 1965 – two years after gaining independence from Britain in 1963 – into one of the world’s most successful economies" - Financial Times.
 * "Singapore became independent, not once, but twice. First, Singapore secured independence from Great Britain after being a colony for over 140 years in 1963, and two years later, became a sovereign unitary state after seceding from the Federation of Malaysia."
 * Shiok (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no precedent that I can see for the "sovereignty_type" field to completed with "independence from" something. The field asks simply for the current "sovereignty_type" of the country.  In the case of Singapore, it is simply "independent".   It will take an RfC to use "independence from" here and the likelihood of that succeeding is about zero.  So please just drop that.  The rest of the fields should just work back in time from the current status. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will assume there is consensus and restore the infobox for now, together with citations. Adding one more to list above. Shiok (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not assume consensus after such a tangled disagreement; please wait for confirmation that there actually is consensus. I have reverted.  But now we have a proposal.  Do folks here agree with this proposal?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is precedence for the independent from clause, it is the longstanding advice given in the country wikiproject, and that advice used to be followed. (The push for the "Formation" formulation in recent years for many articles is the sort of misleading revisionism that we should avoid.) See India, the oldest and most actively maintained country FA as an example.
 * Shiok's above addresses a complete strawman, which didn't even touch on my arguments. Sources noting Singapore obtained "independence from the UK in 1963" or a similar formulation don't help either way without context. Singapore unquestionably did become independent from the UK in 1963, if only through merger into Malaysia. "Politically, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) needed the merger to secure its political legitimacy. When the party was voted into power in the 1959 general election, it had campaigned vigorously for Singapore’s independence through merger with Malaysia." It was the union which overcame British objections to an independent Singapore. Blindly taking any sources mentioning 1963 and independence is useless. I mean, look at the very sources quoted! The Yahoo source notes "Singapore gained independence from Britain in 1963 and immediately became part of Malaysia". For it to "immediately" become part of Malaysia, the gaining of independence in question is surely the 16 September date. I can't access the FT source myself, but note that as FT said Singapore did gain independence from the UK in 1963, when it joined Malaysia. As I sourced above, the UK explicitly stated that they did not devolve powers on 31 August. The third source seems even clearer. "Singapore became independent, not once, but twice. First, Singapore secured independence from Great Britain after being a colony for over 140 years in 1963, and two years later, became a sovereign unitary state after seceding from the Federation of Malaysia." The authors explcitly note it became a sovereign state in the second period, not the first. CMD (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The sources do not describe when did it obtain independence from Britain, and more specifically, did it become a sovereign state after achieving that Independence? I managed to have a look at the FT source and here's the relevant quote Like many parts of the Asian city-state, Punggol has been transformed by the economic miracle that propelled Singapore from what was a southeast Asian backwater after independence from Malaysia in 1965 – two years after gaining independence from Britain in 1963 – into one of the world’s most successful economies. This doesn't clarify the date of independence from Britain. Essentially, Singapore became independent from Britain by joining the Federation of Malaysia (it did not however achieve a sovereign status at this point). It became an independent sovereign state in 1965 only. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * CMD, firstly most of your arguments do not need responding to as they do not affect the milestones in the infobox providing the big picture. Historians can defer on the details. As for strawman - do recall that initially you disputed whether there is 'Independence from UK' by statements like - "Treating a legal transitional phase as a period of sovereign independence is misleading". The quotes in my refs shows recognition that Singapore 'gained independence twice. You did acknowledge later there was independence from UK, but whether it's the declaration itself or at the merger date does not matter here as these are points of views. In any case "Independent" depicts our nation's current status. Shiok (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you wish to avoid the arguments that's your prerogative. I suppose then that they remain unaddressed and will not repeat them here. I will however take yours in turn.
 * "Historians can defer on the details." And we as Wikipedians should reflect these deferrals on the details. That's what WP:WEIGHT is about.
 * "initially you disputed whether there is 'Independence from UK'" This was a point of view which has been sourced above. That Singapore became independent of the UK in 1963 was not the matter under dispute, yet it is the matter your sources discussed, hence the fact they addressed a strawman argument.
 * "but whether it's the declaration itself or at the merger date does not matter here as these are points of views" As this is the content under discussion, it seems to matter quite a bit. What are you trying to get at there?
 * "In any case "Independent" depicts our nation's current status." And not a single person has suggested otherwise.
 * CMD (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * – Infobox is not meant for the details.
 * – to justify your change of the infobox title, you did initially questioned the entry "Independence from UK" and whether the declaration was recognised.
 * – that the copious arguments about the date of Singapore's 1963 independence is of little consequence if it does not affect the current infobox entries
 * So the title will be changed back to 'Independent'. I would add that 'Independence from Malaysia' should replace "expulsion from Malaysia" in the list. Shiok (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - You're proposing the inclusion of more details than I am. My argument that was our short concise overview should reflect the balance provided by sources which do have space to go into the details (much as our sections summarise our main articles and our leads summarise our bodies despite the former being much smaller than the latter in all cases).
 * - Yes, I noted these things based on the sources provided, as I discussed above.
 * - Currently there is nothing on the infobox, but again, you're the one insisting on two 1963 dates. If you don't wish to, then yes, the arguments are of little consequence. If you wish to maintain this position, then the arguments about that position are relevant.
 * - Independence from Malaysia covers the sovereignty_type (status) and the sovereignty_note (origin of status). The expulsion is the event that generated that status. CMD (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mainly been an issue with the section title. I'm agreeable with your last [bold edit] that removed Formation and the event of "Temasek - c.1299". But the proposed change should simply have the sovereign type as 'Independent' proposed by Jytdog. There's consensus of 3 (incl Wrigleygum) to 2 (yourself and lemongirl) for this. As for the '31 Aug 1963' entry, we can change it to "Independence from UK (Declaration)". Shiok (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote, it is a determination on the balance of arguments in the discussion. I remind you that you have deliberately avoided engaging in those. You've also failed to find any sources that demonstrate 31 Aug 1963 as being a very important event, and I have failed to find any myself (while finding quite a few which find it so irrelevant as to not be worth mentioning). As for the title, you propose a change that removes some information, but in the course of avoiding discussions haven't stated why you want to do so. CMD (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yikes wall of text.... But per the Malaysia Agreement, and the Malaysia Act, it states For the purpose of enabling North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as “the new STATES”) to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as “the Federation”), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”) Her Majesty’s sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States. Sovereignty transferred from the British to the Federation of Malaysia. I.t. There's no arguement whether Sarawak and North Borneo were ever independent, sovereign COUNTRIES for this transfer, so not sure what the confusion is.... PS: I am adding one small bit of write-up just to state that it became a sovereign state after the expulsion. Else it sounds incomplete. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'm trying not to add to this wall of irrelevant discussions. Please give your input see if we can end this sooner, starting with the main issue - the infobox section title. My proposed version is the same as CMD's last bold edit except that he wants "Independence from Malaysia" as the title. My point is that since Singapore has two independences - from UK (140 years) and Msia (2 years) - the title should not reflect one over the other. Previously, my preference was 'Independences' to reflect the process, but Jytdog says it should be 'Independent' as the original intent of 'Soveriegn_type', which I now accept. What do you say? Shiok (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not irrelevant, despite your refusal to engage with them. Zhanzhao's quote is directly relevant to what happened in 1963, which I remind you is another point of discussion. Singapore has also become independent from Johor and Japan, if you want to stretch that argument further. However, it remains that the most significant separation was the one which left Singapore a sovereign independent state. CMD (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to his posting but most of the rest. Actually I thought was refuting you, so I asked for his comments on the Infobox section title as well. An official gov.uk source is of course important so we can wait for his response on its context for the infobox. Shiok (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I only saw this quite late in the discussion, I'm not even sure who is on what side now. But this is my personal opinion, I think its fine to just stick with just Independence, per Austria. Maybe like Hong Kong's infobox, Transfer of Soverignty from UK to Malaysia or Macau. The info-headers in all 3 are left simple without descriptors, letting the wiki-linked bulletpoints say all that needs to be said. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so that will be 4 editors preferring Independent(Jytdg) or independence(Zhanzhao,Wrigleygum) - I am agreeable with either term. If there is no other editor commenting (?), I will restore the infobox from this to this according. Yes simple is better, we can continue to discuss bulletpoints if needed. Shiok (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't assume consensus. It's not a vote! The reason why Austria only has independence is because it was occupied by multiple countries. The scenario in Singapore is different - it was not occupied by different countries, it was only part of 1 country. In this case, there is no reason why independence from Malaysia cannot be mentioned. It should also be noticed that the word "Independence" in Austria is wikilinked to Austrian State Treaty - which was the most recent incident establishing the sovereign state. In Singapore's case the most recent incident resulting in a sovereign state was independence from Malaysia. (Hong Kong is not a country, so we can't really compare). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Given Shiok has explicitly refused to engage with my points, I am unsure where to go from here. Would WP:DRN make sense? CMD (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do so. I have explained that most of the discussion is simply irrelevant to the infobox. At least DRN can provide a firm outcome. Shiok (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, although I am not intimately familiar with the process. Everyone who wishes should chip in on the initial filing post at Dispute resolution noticeboard. CMD (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Singapore
We need to add one sentence about the Capital punishment in Singapore. It has attracted the attention of the media as well as the Local and International activist groups []. It seems serious issue. Saudi2828 (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
Hi! Recently I've checked the article Names of Singapore then I saw the etymology section of Singapore article, I thought I'd include the information that the root could be traced back to Tamil. Well, my edit was reverted back. Now I would like to make sure which one is the correct one. In my view the Tamil seems to be more plausible, however, Singam is in my view a tamilisied version of Sanskrit word Simha. --Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイtalk 12:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Luigi Boy. Do you have sources that have looked at this possibility? CMD (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx for reply. Well, unfortunately I don't have any, but if we take the history of Singapore then it seems for me a little bit logic that the word came from Tamil rather than from Sanskrit. I mean the Chola king wasn't a northern one, so I don't get the point why he should name a place by Sanskrit words. Hence, I'll try to research this problem. --Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイtalk 12:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like original research, and unsupported by sources. The original source say Sanskrit. I'll revert the edit back to the original state. Hzh (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah thx for the info I've only checked the change aftermath. Then it seems clear to me. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイtalk 18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Chola kings conversed in Tamil, but used Sanskrit as a liturgical language. Both languages existed in parallel in the Chola realms, just for different purposes (eg: Tamil for conversational and ritualistic purposes, Sanskrit for more liturgical purposes/place names). This source explains more. In addition, the origin of 'Singapura' is credited to Sang Nila Utama, not the Cholas. As Sang Nila Utama named the city in Sanskritised Malay, Sanskrit is credited as the origin of the name. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Tamil
please change ((Tamil)) to ((Tamil language|Tamil)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:C70:41A0:EAB7:4FB4:60A8 (talk • contribs)
 * ✅ Kleuske (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: It was not as simple as Kleuske said. Its not clear where exactly you want the change. However I made some copyedits which included the linking in the lead section, but was reverted to an earlier "stable" version by Lemongirl942. I made the edits again with reasonable edit summaries. In future please be precise of the changes you want to be made and make sure to sign on the talkpage. regards,   DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  11:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed Tamil to Tamil language where the text referenced language. You're right, it wasn't specified exactly. I assumed the article to be stable and that the request was made in good faith (no reason to assume otherwise). Other editors are (of course) welcome to rectify any and all mistakes I may have made or left in the text. Kleuske (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted to an older version and didn't realise that some of the changes were outside the etymology section. Apologies for that. Essentially I reverted this set of POV edits. 's edits were on top of these edits, so when I reverted they became moot. A part of DRAGON BOOSTER's edits were also to this section, but I missed the other edits. Sorry for that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. If there is POV content, it needs to be reverted ruthlessly. Thanks for that. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was explaining the IP, how to make a complete edit request and the effort (sometimes) the editors take to answer a five word edit request. I also left a talkback because the Ip's trying to contribute to wikipedia. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Don`t worry about that. I would have done the same. I was just describing what happened with a note to the IP, that is all. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

Official Scripts
Should Jawi be included in the infobox? According to this, the Chinese, Tamil, and Jawi scripts are the three 'ethnic characters' that are sanctioned for use on the IC. This popular meme is proof of it. Is this enough for Jawi to be counted as an official script? Tiger7253 (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The constitution itself explicitly calls for "Malay language...in the Roman script". That said, it may be worth mentioning in the text that it is allowed. We actually don't mention scripts outside the infobox at all, and our infobox info on scripts is uncited. The constitution doesn't to my knowledge mention Chinese or Tamil scripts. Our article on Simplified Chinese characters says without source that traditional Chinese can be used on IC cards as well. This raises the question of what happens to the non-Tamil Indians, although perhaps they simply write in Tamil script as well. CMD (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Non-Tamil Indian Singaporeans write in their own scripts. Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu were added to the school curriculum in the 90's. As for Jawi, I think it'd be worth putting a note in the infobox that Jawi is an additional script for documentation purposes. Tiger7253 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That source says nothing about scripts, although I'm not arguing they don't do so for their Mother Tongue studies. However, this does not mean they use that script on their IC card.
 * We have evidence that Jawi can be used for one document. That hardly seems significant enough for such prominent mention, especially given the paucity of sources which discuss it. CMD (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Singapore with the better condition of 2016
I think that Singapore wins acquiring Norway, but the Government Programme is on progress. KaplanAL (talk) 1309, 29 January 2017 (SST) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Racism against atheists and nones
18,4 % are non-religious. The "other" term is about other smaller religions not about atheists. Religious people don't respect us; especially my mother! =/ Some theists claim we shouldn't mention the non-religious people because their opinion about religion isn't important. In statistics we record data. If there is a data you have to reveal it! That's what I tell to my mother but she doesn't respect me as a different thinker and a PERSON! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4101:A00:84AC:9D7D:30D:9E4E (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Capital Punishment in the Lede
I have removed the paragraph about capital punishment in the lede, which was added by Spacecowboy420 in this edit, as it is not ledeworthy.

These are the reasons:
 * Some editors consider human rights a serious issue, but this view is a subjective one. If it is to be added in such a noteworthy place like the lede, consensus must first be achieved.
 * Next, this is only a single statistic, which is almost twenty years old. There are plenty of other statistics like demographics, economics which are more recent and more relevant. It is fine to include this in the lede if it is currently occurring (such as the comment about the PAP government in power from 1959 to present), but not if it occurred twenty years in the past.
 * This is not a notable issue. The only other issues referencing the past in the lede are referring to sovereignty: Singapore's founding, World War II and obtaining independence.

I will assume good faith that Spacecowboy420, who inserted this, does not have political reasons for doing so. However, it is not relevant and I have removed it. --Terrancommander (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fine with removing this. The bigger problem with this is not that it is old, but that it seems to be giving undue weight to one particular article by William Gibson. This doesn't belong in the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore's Infobox Sovereignty section changes
Hi there has been a WP:Dispute Resolution process on the above for the last 3 weeks. It is in the final stages with no objections in the past week to proposed changes :


 * Independent
 * British colonisation: 6 February 1819
 * Self-government: 3 June 1959
 * Independence from the UK (by Declaration): 31 August 1963
 * Formation of Malaysia: 16 September 1963
 * Separation from Malaysia: 9 August 1965

Any new editors can participate in the [DRN discussions here] and you are welcome to state your views. I will be posting the changes shortly if there are no further comments at DRN. Thanks. Shiok (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore's Declaration of Independence (31 August 1963) - Notes

 * British High Commissioner, Singapore - Antony Phillipson:
 * "On 9th August 2015 Singapore will celebrate 50 years as an independent nation [..] But a key moment in the journey to the events of 1965 came on 31st August 1963, 50 years ago today, when Singapore declared its independence from the United Kingdom." (published 31 August 2013)
 * "Last September I wrote an article for Lianhe Zaobao on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of a key moment in Singapore’s path to independence, its separation from the UK in 1963.
 * I wrote then that "50 years on from Singapore’s declaration of independence from the UK the relationship between us is both strong and deep. The ties that bind us now are those of friendship, partnership and respect; and they provide a platform on which we can work together for mutual benefit, for the good of all our people, in the years to come."


 * I understand that you want to declare this resolved, but I looked at the archived discussion, where the moderator gave up, and re-opened DRN and there is no consensus yet. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution still needed?
Hi all,

I noticed there is an open DRN thread about the info box, and was wondering if this still needs assistance to be resolved? Please let me know on my talk page if it is, thanks. Steven  Crossin  14:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017
Even though English is the first language of the nation, according to the 2010 census 20% of Singaporeans are illiterate in English.

Please rewrite the second half of this sentence. Adding a comma after "census" would work, as would changing it to "20% of Singaporeans are illiterate in English, according to the 2010 census." I just think that the sentence should separate the attribution (census) and data (illiteracy rate). 208.95.51.38 (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, adding a comma after "census". Gulumeemee (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Singapore. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615140344/http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/new-straits-times/mi_8016/is_20060507/ride/ai_n44321524/ to http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/new-straits-times/mi_8016/is_20060507/ride/ai_n44321524/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Singapore. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511132343/http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_93_2005-01-26.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_93_2005-01-26.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207082203/http://library.thinkquest.org/12405/19.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/12405/19.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160322233426/https://www.cpib.gov.sg/sites/default/files/publication-documents/CPIB%20Corruption%20Statistics_0.pdf to https://www.cpib.gov.sg/sites/default/files/publication-documents/CPIB%20Corruption%20Statistics_0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Improvements + cleanups
I would like to suggest a list of improvements, namely:

1. Deleting official scripts from the infobox. This is rather redundant; there is nothing in this section that can not already be inferred from the list of official languages right above it. There are not many country articles with official scripts in the infobox either, regardless of whether they do or do not have official scripts.

2. Adding 'Temasek' to the etymology section because it is notable. It was Singapore's earliest recorded name prior to its naming by Sang Nila Utama. See India for example: In the etymology section, a summary of the country's most notable historical names (Bharat, Hindustan) is listed.

3. Expanding the lead text to include a new paragraph summarising Singapore's precolonial history. It starts at Stamford Raffles' founding of Singapore and leaves out the lengthy and important period that preceded the 1800s -- that paragraph about Raffles should come after a short write-up mentioning the island's suzerainty under the Srivijayas, its establishment as Singapura under that empire, then the change of hands to the Majapahits, the sack of the island by the Portuguese, its descent into obscurity, then followed by the para on Raffles. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello there you do know that they should include Singapore as a vassal state of the melaka sultanate, majapahit and Srivijaya Malcolm Mak (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Singapore. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529081759/http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article7878 to http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article7878
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110417154628/http://www.parliament.gov.sg/members-parliament to http://www.parliament.gov.sg/members-parliament
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503011701/http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/singapore to http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/singapore
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502062140/http://the-diplomat.com/asean-beat/2012/02/14/singapore-eyes-u-s-balance/ to http://the-diplomat.com/asean-beat/2012/02/14/singapore-eyes-u-s-balance/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009010622/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/SDDS/data.html to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/SDDS/data.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160221140252/http://www.salary.sg/2010/44-percent-of-workforce-are-non-citizens/ to http://www.salary.sg/2010/44-percent-of-workforce-are-non-citizens/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150807162709/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/statistics/browse_by_theme/economy/time_series/gdp.xls to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/statistics/browse_by_theme/economy/time_series/gdp.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927084628/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/statistics/browse_by_theme/economy/time_series/exchange.xls to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/statistics/browse_by_theme/economy/time_series/exchange.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161114005811/http://www.slate.fr/story/70305/singapour-paradis-fiscal to http://www.slate.fr/story/70305/singapour-paradis-fiscal
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161001155132/http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/Singapore.pdf to http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/Singapore.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008055647/http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107980/countries-with-the-biggest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor to https://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107980/countries-with-the-biggest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023215241/http://www.eahep.org/asiahigher-education/asian-policy-drivers/127-developing-asian-education-hubs.html to http://www.eahep.org/asiahigher-education/asian-policy-drivers/127-developing-asian-education-hubs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160527192902/http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/taxis/getting-a-taxi.html to http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/taxis/getting-a-taxi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304134017/http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/international-students/general-info/ to http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/international-students/general-info/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150409232634/https://www.nhb.gov.sg/NHBPortal/faces/oracle/webcenter/portalapp/pagehierarchy/Page857.jspx%3Bjsessionid%3DzbgYWAXoyt04Lr1BHPXSPYm216a4Pf1M3Bbd5yYIeNGZop1a05pJ%21224933089?_afrWindowId=null&_afrLoop=3309796028833401&detContId=NHBSVRAPP61620001246&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=si7eo176a_4 to https://www.nhb.gov.sg/NHBPortal/faces/oracle/webcenter/portalapp/pagehierarchy/Page857.jspx%3Bjsessionid%3DzbgYWAXoyt04Lr1BHPXSPYm216a4Pf1M3Bbd5yYIeNGZop1a05pJ%21224933089?_afrWindowId=null&_afrLoop=3309796028833401&detContId=NHBSVRAPP61620001246&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=si7eo176a_4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement
"During the 1950s, Chinese communists with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools waged a guerrilla war against the government, leading to the Malayan Emergency. "

The Malayan Emergency started in Malaya, not Singapore, in 1948. This sentence suggests that it originated in Singapore and spread onto the mainland of the Malay peninsula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.86.220 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Singapore. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230171135/https://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resources/speeches/2008/18feb08_speech2.html to http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resources/speeches/2008/18feb08_speech2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Singapore. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923172419/http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/People/Faculty/Stark/pdfs/AP1999%20article.pdf to http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/people/faculty/stark/pdfs/AP1999%20article.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_62_2004-12-17.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209233514/http://www.nam.gov.za/background/members.htm to http://www.nam.gov.za/background/members.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017
Under the section 10.3 Sports and recreation, there is no mentioning of Asia's biggest MMA promotion ONE Championship. Please add the following at the end of section 10.3:

Singapore is the home of Asia's biggest MMA promotion ONE Championship. Notable fighters on the promotion's roster include Ben Askren, Roger Gracie, Brandon Vera and Shinya Aoki. Robb in (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  01:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017
Change Singapura name derived from Sanskrit to Tamil. In sanskrit, it is simha but in Tamil it is "Singam". 2601:86:102:91E:A4FB:86DB:4E25:3FE1 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2017
Under culture list the Original Theme park: Haw Par Villa Built in 1937 features 18 levels of hell according to Chinese philosophies. GirlMan Media (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/singapore-50-reasons/index.html GirlMan Media (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Included link to Haw Par Villa article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Confusing/incorrect sentence
"Stamford Raffles founded colonial Singapore in 1819 as a trading post of the East India Company, but after its collapse and the eventual establishment of the British Raj, the islands were ceded to Britain and became part of its Straits Settlements in 1826."

The collapse of the East India Company that is mentioned apparently happened in 1857 and the establishment of the British Raj apparently took place in 1858. The thing about the Straits Settlements happened over 30 years before. So... this sentence simply seems incorrect to me? Can't make any sense of it. 90.227.225.20 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done: Clarified date, Straits Settlements explained in body. Thank you. Shiok (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Misleading sentence
", and its greening policy has covered the densely populated island with tropical flora, parks and gardens."

It might be more accurate to say that its development policy replaced jungle and plantations and covered the island with hi-density housing. However, pockets of vegetation remain. To say the island is "covered" with parks and gardens is very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.86.220 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. This was misleading and I have removed this. The "garden city" vision was about tree lines avenues and urban greenery. The geography section already explains this quite well.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Addition of content about greenery/biodiversity
Regarding Edit 1 and Edit 2, here are some observations.
 * Edit 1 actually removed a very well cited paper (500 + citations) from Nature (journal) which is a highly reputable journal. The content was also succinctly written. It explained about the deforestation along with the efforts to combat it.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the MIT Treepedia which ranked cities based on greenery in Google Street View. This is a pretty bad ranking to use as it excludes cites in most parts of the world including India and China. Secondly, the reputation of the ranking also needs to be looked at. This is not really a ranking by a well respected institution, but rather a project by a single research group over there. I don't see well respected think tanks or institutes using this ranking.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Yale Environmental Performance Index seems to have a better reputation but Singapore's performance seems to have been fluctuating. I have removed it for the time being as it only referred to one particular year (2014)--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Reduce the images
Can we reduce the images please? I wanted to add an image of the Singapore Botanic Gardens which is a World Heritage Site. But the article is so cluttered with images that I hardly see any space to add them.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Some vandals messed up the religion data
Please fix them according to the table here.--188.216.245.246 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated according to table in religion section.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2018
Under "Republic of Singapore" add this image:

AaronPogs (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No reason given why this image is useful or needed. Unless the white building on the corner with the pagoda-styled roof has some historical significance, this is a generic street scene that could be one of many cities. It does not give the reader any further information about Singapore or what that city in particular used to look like.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

GA prep
Please discuss or list improvements needed to this page here as a precedent to the GA review. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 09:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added some more stuff. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 14:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * maybe we can nom it first and work on it while we find a reviewer. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 04:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Top Importance

 * cn tags on article, some paras need refs.
 * Article needs to be updated
 * Singapore needs some rewriting for WP:NPOV
 * Partialy done
 * Singapore requires flow
 * Use WP:City structure; maybe add a section on tourism by summarising Tourism in Singapore

Mid Importance

 * Maybe a copyedit would be good
 * Update Template:Singapore weatherbox

Other problems

 * Rewrite some image captions, e.g. at Singapore
 * As of this diff: (not a comprehensive list) fix refs 4, 16, 27, 76, 108, 114, 172, 242, 272, 275, 340, 355, 365. Some sources may not be reliable, e.g. 56, 134, 178. Ref 347 is dead as the website has shut down.
 * Make citation style consistent

Auto peer review comments FYI
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. *Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is. Ng. - GLitch can ignore --Quek157 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC) You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
 * Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to [//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page wikicommons] or integrating images with the text.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), harbor (A) (British: harbour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), offence (B) (American: offense), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), curb (A) (British: kerb), programme (B) (American: program ), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: Doesn't, can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please provide citations for all of the s.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

--Quek157 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Will try to have some of these issues fixed as I have access to AWB now. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Much appreciated. Sad to see Singapore in such a state. (the wikipedia page). However, to bring it to GA based on our recent experience with GA if Canberra MRT is crossing Bukit Timah, Singapore will be crossing Genting Highlands. But all the best, and glad you have AWB. --Quek157 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If Singapore is crossing Genting the Sengkang is crossing Everest? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 23:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will now change. Canberra will be mount Faber .Sengkang will be bukit timah while Singapore will be pinnacle@duxton. not taking lifts to 50 storey skybridge. not cannot make it but more challenging Quek157 (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018
Please change 新加坡民国 (Chinese) to 新加坡共和国 (Chinese). Mousekingkong (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Error seems to have been recently introduced with this edit, have corrected it Cannolis (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)