Talk:Singapore strategy

Opening sentence
✅

Interesting article, possibly, but the opening sentence tells me nothing. "The Singapore strategy was a strategy of the British Empire between 1919 and 1941." You would not start an article, "The battleship ''USS Nimrod" was an American battleship."

A strategy about what? -Fjozk (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What wording do you suggest as an improvement? Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything that elaborates on strategy rather than just replacing it; you know the old school rule, you don't define a word by saying that it is what it is. I made an edit that I think will work. -Fjozk (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was hoping someone would tie it to the second sentence in the manner Ed did. Thanks. Can the main page be changed to reflect this much better opening sentence? -Fjozk (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the first sentence is fine - if one does not know what the USS Nimrod was, then defining it as a battleship is informative. similarly, the Singapore Strategy could have been a Japanese strategy, or a British strategy of the 19th century.

Later in the article, in "Base Development", it is stated that the area of the shipyard was 21 sq miles. This seems rather large since only 2845 acres (4.44 sq miles) was donated. can this be checked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.217.10 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not check against the reference, so I have removed the sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe "the USS Nimrod was an American boat," then is a better example, but to the point of this opening sentence, it's not just using that it's British, it's that it's easy and straightforward to say what type of strategy it was, war contingencies, as strategy is such a vague word, and not just that's it's British, but repeating the word in the same sentence added nothing, and was poor reading. It has been rewritten to be a much better sentence by elaborating on what type of strategy, war plans rather than light bulb installing or tulip growing agriculture, in addtion to the British. I don't think anyone is going to offer that the vague, say nothing, open sentencing should be returned to the lead of this article.-Fjozk (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the new wording is excellent. During the FAC a number of people tried to figure out a way to describe the Singapore strategy in a single sentence, which the MOS requires. I think we have one now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an excellent lead sentence. I am very impressed; although I improved it, I knew it needed someone else to write it. -Fjozk (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

New map
Source: Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919-1939: Planning for War Against Japan Maxrossomachin (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Added to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

POV
The article seems to put an anti-British POV similar to that put by Paul Keating. Some examples:
 * The "promised fleet". Was a fleet really promised? A plan is not a promise, and the pre-war plan was no longer feasible, if it ever had been.
 * The tanks and planes sent to the USSR. Yes, but the USSR was under siege; Singapore wasn't. And how useful would tanks have been in Malaya?
 * The focus on Australia, including the quote from Keating. In fact, Australia is mentioned 57 times; Malay only 16 times. WW2 was not all about Australia; the Battle of Singapore was not all about Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

On recent Origins edits
The sentence (and its context): "Throughout the 1920s, the Royal Navy therefore remained the world's largest navy, with a comfortable margin of superiority over Japan, which was regarded as the most likely adversary." My issues: Does the given reference (which I cannot check) back up the first clause or the second or both? Is not the "therefore" misplaced as the first clause does not follow from the previous sentence on the Washington Naval Treaty? Is the first clause even relevant to the article? Moreover, edit summaries on reversions saying arbitrarily "this is correct" are not very helpful..without a lot more explaining. Juan Riley (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't feel any particular need to be helpful. If you haven't done the reading, why are you trying to change the article? How can you know that what you say is covered by the text? When you make a change to an article like that, you are claiming expertise in the subject area. I have deleted "therefore", as, while true and supported by the source, it doesn't logically follow from the previous sentence. Anyhow, the source talks about the Washington Naval treaty; the need to maintain superiority to the USN in American waters; discussions about how superior to the USN the RN needed to be; the "Admiralty's growing concern about the perceived threat from Japan" ... "the navy's warnings about Japan's long-range intentions"; Foreign Office arguments that Japan was not a threat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not worry, hawkeye, your edit descriptions and talk page comments would only rarely be (mis)taken as helpful. Juan Riley (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, User:Hawkeye7..."therefore" (an adverb or sentence connector) is "true and supported by the source" but "it doesn't logically follow from the previous sentence"? I am beginning to suspect you are the non-native English speaker. Or perhaps you have a peculiar notion of rhetoric and/or logic, i.e., whatever rationale necessary to convince yourself you are right? No need to respond. I understand. Juan Riley (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
I may be biased and fully accept that others might see this differently. But defining this as a "defense strategy" seems to be a stretch in my eyes. We are talking about a time when the British Empire (or whatever the correct title whould have to be) was controlling the High Seas the same way the US is at the moment. So we are talking about the projection of power in order to retain global dominance. Taking that into account this strategy is as defensive as holding a threatening fist under the nose of a weaker opponent. Do what I say or else ... Which I see as an act of passive aggression and not of defense. As pointed out at the beginning - other may see it differently. JB. --92.193.203.159 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Using the term "defence" is problematic. We should just say "naval" strategy.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The policy was always a defensive one, to counter Japanese aggression and protect colonies in the Asia-Pacific region.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the end was an oil embargo declared on Japan which left the country only two options - run out of oil and be at the mercy of Britain and the US ... or fight. Which led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Now I know that this tale is no one-sided story. Japan hat been in conflict with China for some time. However my point here is that when you put a fortress on one of your opponents vital supply lines and cut him off from said supplies forcing him to attack you in order to not run out of gas ... what you are doing is not entirely defensive. The whole ideology here presumes that Japan is seen as the aggressor whereas Britain and the US who themself also "acquired" foreign territories all the time somehow are seen as in their rights to define who's occupations are legit and who has no right to expand. I know this is very very dependend on the POV and this is the English Wikipedia. I guess if I spoke Japaneese ... Once again - I understand that this is complicated and potentially controversial, so please forgive me if I step on any tails. JB. --92.193.186.220 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please provide reliable sources which state that the Singapore strategy was not defensive in nature. No one cares about your personal opinions. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If we start sealioning ... how about the guy who requires proof first offers some himself ? What I was attempting to do is to flag a point where the article could possibly be improved. And by the way - ad hominem attacks are bad style and totally unnecessary, especially as I repeatedly stated that I do not seek conflict. Yes, off the top of the head I do not possess sources. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though. I mentioned the problem in order to get help from people with more knowledge and access to propper sources. JB. --92.193.170.162 (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)