Talk:Singapore

Template:WP1.0

Introduction

Am I the only one who finds the introduction too long and full of irrelevant and overly promotional superlatives? None of these data are problematic in themselves, but they should be in the body of the article, not crammed into the intro. Thoughts? Zurkhardo (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably not - but the others may be too shy/lazy/inarticulate to express their thoughts here.

Certainly, there shouldn't be any shockingly novel material in the introduction; per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to summarise in a balanced way material that is dealt with (perhaps at much greater length) elsewhere in the article. As for superlatives - Singapore is admired and envied in equal measure in many parts of the globe because it does things superlatively well in many fields of human endeavour. BushelCandle (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zurkhardo. The lead has degraded significantly in the past year and a half, and as it stand it is bloated and wp:puffery. It could do with a wholesale reversion. CMD (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Degraded? Compared to which version?

Every point is backed by reliable citations. What seems puffery to you has taken the small city decades to achieve and is widely acknowledged and reported. What you deem irrelevant may be very informative for others and should not be dismissed.

I have mentioned New York City and London previously. Have a look at their article leads and compare. Perhaps attempt to reverse the superlatives and touristy info there, instead of easier pickings.Wrigleygum (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The version that editors (including myself for disclosure) created on the talkpage many years ago, which from what I can see in history was maintained quite stably until expansion into the current form began sometime last year. It followed the guidelines of WP:LEAD that bushelcandle noted above, which the current form doesn't. Neither of the leads of New York nor London shout "role model" to me, so I don't think they should be used as standards, but I will note that neither of them blatantly lists quoted titles from individual organisations, nor lists Lonely Planet rankings in their lead (or even the entire article). CMD (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not that information is wrong or uncited, but that it has no place in an introduction that is long enough as it is. We can easily encapsulate all those details with general and briefer reference to Singapore being a leading economic power, good performer in various international metrics, etc., and save the details for their relevant sections in the body. Look to featured articles like Australia and Canada and how they handle such matters without sounding too promotional or propagandist.Zurkhardo (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that both succinctness and tone are important. As ever, the devil will be in the detail as to how those goals are achieved.... BushelCandle (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your opinion of the pre-expansion lead, where do you think it went wrong? CMD (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• "degraded significantly in the past year and a half" — that's so vague, you need to provide a link to version(s) for comparison.
• "quoted titles from individual organisations" — What's blatant about faithfully reproduced quoted titles? - its a principle of minimal change. And its brief, so a number of notable ones can fit in one sentence. The city-state is known mainly for its economic success, which in turn makes social possible. Take that away, there's not much that's interesting here.
• "Lonely Planet rankings" — I would say being listed top choice city out of a thousand destinations that international airlines fly to around the world is notable. If no other country list it, maybe because there is only one top choice a year. And it may not happen again for the Spore for another 50 years, to SG100. This is for 2015 and not meant to be permanent, so you can remove it if you wish. Wrigleygum (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, take as comparison the state at the start of 2015. I'd make some changes to that too reading over it now, but unlike the current version, it is a summary of the most important points, which is its purpose per WP:LEAD. Listing individual ranking after individual ranking is not a summary, not is excessive individual details. As for being brief, even the 2015 lead is not brief, so the current lead is anything but. Lonely Planet rankings are perhaps notable, but in no way qualify for a "summary of its most important contents" for a reader's understanding of Singapore, much like most individual rankings. Furthermore things should not even be included in the article just because they happened recently, let alone the lead. CMD (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree here. It's not that the information is wrong. It is just that there is way too much weight on certain international rankings. It is interesting that there is no information about Singapore's sketchy human rights record, restriction on press freedom and being a "flawed democracy". This reeks of advocacy to me. Is there consensus to revise the introduction? Zurkhardo, BushelCandle, Chipmunkdavis --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the body content? - most of it is still there. The last time I checked for "flawed democracy" rating by Economists months ago, Singapore was the only country that someone inserted this - anywhere in any country article.. although more than half of the world is below SG. But I didn't have the heart to remove it - everyone wants to see the flaws. I would suggest you take the time to check every country on the Economist's ranking and let us know if "flawed democracy" appears in their articles. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The question here is about the introduction. It needs to summarise the information in the body. The present introduction gives undue weight to a lot of rankings. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I certainly agree with the budding consensus that the introduction must be made more straightforward. Australia and Canada offer a good model for how one can highlights a nation's superrelatives without sounding too promotional or loading it with references.

Wrong photo caption?

"Hwa Chong Institution was the first Chinese institution of higher learning in Southeast Asia in 1919."

Higher learning is university level.

Hwa Chong, to my knowledge, only ever has been a school for children, not university students or equivalents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.164.45 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right. I just checked NLB, which says "first Chinese-medium high school". Will change it, thanks Wrigleygum (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Introduction written as advertisement

The entire introduction is about all the bright sides of the city, which is like an advertisement. A wiki article should state both sides of the coin.Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Xxjkingdom: See discussion above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm here

Hi Lemon, you deleted another editor's RS-content without discussing first, and you are upset? Wrigleygum (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not upset. That information is a news coverage. Wikipedia is supposed to contain a summary version of important events. We also need to keep events in a historical perspective. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course its news, some a lot more coverage and greater implications than others. 25-years is like a generational event. Further, there is expectation that the Taiwan training arrangement may eventually be consolidated in Australia, as reported. If you disagree, we can take a public poll here or in the wiki public forum. These are minor matters to me Wrigleygum (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that the importance of the event itself is not clear at the moment. A deal has just been signed. We don't know what is going to happen in the future, we don't know the impact and we cannot assume anything at the moment. In addition, the article is supposed to summarise the fact that Singapore has military agreements with other countries and it already does so. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

But clearly its a firm inter-govt agreement, and readers come here expecting to read the latest, even though wiki is not the best source for news. So if they go elsewhere instead, Wikipedia lose out right? somewhere I read that Wiki readership has dropped in its rankings. We can help make it relevant and interesting so they come to WP first. We can just take a poll, whichever way it goes.. does not bother me.

Btw, I have not said anything about your removal of my LHL edits. Seeing that you are being productive and doing generally good work around the clock, its within your right to remove anything without citation. I will get around to it. I'm apolitical but I know there will be many who may be unhappy with a writeup. otoh it's hard to reconcile that every other major country has a good length lead of their leader, whereas LHL's is so basic, almost exactly like LKY's article, before I spent some time on it last year.Wrigleygum (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually for stuff like this news, we have a place here. Inter-govt agreements are not notable per se. This article is supposed to summarise the information about Singapore. The content which you added would probably have found a better place here Australia–Singapore_relations#Military_cooperation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the Wiki readership. But regardless, we need to go by policies. I guess others will comment soon. Just to let you know, in Wikipedia decisions are made based on consensus (following policies/guidelines) rather than a poll. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lemongirl, that sort of detail is far too specific for this page. This page is meant to inform the reader about Singapore, which is different from discussing specific Singaporean topics. Much of the military section is already far too specific to add understanding of Singapore itself as it is, and single agreements fall well below what I'd expect from WP:SUMMARY STYLE. CMD (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 may 2016.

The article says that Singlish is a pidgin, but it has native speakers, so it is a creole. Could someone please edit the article to make this change? Hobomancat (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Per this it is actually neither. I changed to a more neutral version though as it is not a pidgin either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

Hello Editors, your help would be greatly appreciated if the following section is amended.

...close relationships with China set the new nation's policies for the next half-century...

"China" should be changed to "the United States". References:

1. Singapore–United States relations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore%E2%80%93United_States_relations
2. United States-Singapore Relations. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/11/200671.htm
3. Lee Kuan Yew’s Role in Singapore-U.S. Relations. http://asiafoundation.org/2015/03/25/lee-kuan-yews-role-in-singapore-u-s-relations/
4. The communist threat in perspective. http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/the-communist-threat-in-perspective

I am a little surprised this misunderstanding in this page existed for such a long time. One more proof: Singapore buys US/NATO arms instead of Chinese scraps.

I believed most editors would second my suggestion.

For those who are less inclined to this change: Thank you very much. Your position is fully understood. I will make the change myself.

Fred.jp (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Neither of the current sources support the "close relations with China" portion, so I've removed it. At the same time, the one usable source you offer (the third one) isn't enough to support inserting US instead. (Wiki articles and opinion pieces are not WP:RS; the second source is primary... much prefer a secondary source). The Foreign Relations section of the article covers both well enough I think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead needs a trim

We have had a discussion on this before. I think the lead needs to be trimmed. See articles for United States, Australia, New Zealand. I think this edit is not required and is simply cluttering the lead with excessive data.

I propose a revert of this edit. Editors can reply with support/oppose and explain their views. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging previously involved users Wrigleygum, Zurkhardo, BushelCandle, Chipmunkdavis, Xxjkingdom --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have previously started to write a 'dissertation' on the SG lead which is quite lengthy - will continue on it and post it soon, sometime next week. It covers each paragraph and the rationale for inclusion.Wrigleygum (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. I'll preemptively state WP:TLDR. Long verbiage about long verbiage will definitely not help this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the info is valid, and belongs somewhere (though perhaps a bit WP:UNDUE for the lede). Rather than just revert, perhaps we should add a section on "International recognition" or some such, expand on that info, and then add a one-or-two-sentence summary of this for the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I started an RfC below. The info is valid. It's just that it is cluttering the lead. For comparison, see New Zealand and Canada which are featured article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• • The info is valid, but compiling it all into a section on rankings or recognition would not be a good solution. Ranking, if notable, should be discussed within the sections covering their topics. The lead before the edit already contains a summary of the topics the rankings cover. CMD (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC about lead section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting comments about the lead section of this article as it has too much content. Concerns have been previously raised that it is too promotional and possibly gives undue weight to certain rankings (see concerns here [1], [2], [3], [4]). For reference, the lead of this article can be compared to the leads in Australia, Canada (both FAs), New Zealand and United States (both GAs). I tried to summarise some of the content, but I was reverted citing BRD. I would request the community to have a look and see if concerns about undue weight, NPOV and promotion are justified. In particular I have the following proposal:

• Propose removal of content about individual rankings, it can be summarised. (basically I propose a revert of this edit)
• Propose additional trimming of the lead.

Any other comments about how to improve the lead are welcome. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support as in previous discussion. I personally think that the lead should be reverted to a much older state, perhaps its state as of a a year and a half ago or the last time it was discussed on this talk page. From there it would be useful to discuss what additions were productive. Regarding this edit however, it turns a concise summary sentence "Singapore is a major commercial hub, financial centre and one of the world's busiest container ports" into a list of numbers and rankings, which does not enhance the reader's understanding of Singpore, and is pure WP:Puffery to boot. CMD (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I would support the revert if at least some of the sourced info is added to the body. Singapore is a very non-typical country, so some such info on how it's viewed is useful. I agree the lede is long, but I don't see how I can !vote for an unspecified "trimming". --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to integrating some of the information in the body. That can be discussed. My reason for creating an RfC was to ask for opinions specifically on the lead which is badly cluttered and full of puffery. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If the information is not in the body it shouldn't be in the lead anyway. At any rate, I agree the notable ones should be added to the body. Some however, such as "International-meetings city (UIA)" and rankings for SIA/Changi, I have trouble justifying even for the body. CMD (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Some tweaks maybe, but most of it is informative. I actually prefer the rankings so I can decide for myself if its significant Shiok (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per CMD. Enough of rankings and puffery. Singapore is well-known for using rankings selectively to put itself in a positive light. If the article is to be neutral then it should also include rankings about "highest cost of living in the world", "154th in Press Freedom of the World", etc. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Too fixated on too many rankings, many of which are time sensitive. United States and Hong Kong for example are pretty balanced ones, focusing on history and ending off with a few key indicators of its present state (pleasing to read, and chronological to boot).Zhanzhao (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (PS Not a vote, but I feel this is important to point out). In relation to Mailer Diablo's comment about "highest cost of living", this varies by report, depending on the report's objective (a number of the "most expensive" reports were curtailed from studies of expats, for expats), and many of the reports were ranking cities rather than countries which makes Singapore an odd bird to describe, being commonly (whether rightly or not) described as both city and country at the same time by most reports and agencies. This confusion applies to Hong Kong as well. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are consistently ranked among top 3 as most expensive CITIES to live in, but the ranking falls when we are comparing COUNTRIES [5][6]. Do keep this in mind when considering the phrasing later on. Of course this would apply to other such rankings as well. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It's been a while but I like to chip in. I find the current version clear and concise for so much data. Compared to many versions over the years, it's clutter-free which makes it easy to read, maybe because it's free of references, unlike New york. A bit long maybe I don't know, but good data which the world should know about Singapore. WP:PUFFERY - "claim that expresses subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally.[1] Puffery serves to "puff up" an exaggerated image". There is nothing subjective or exaggerated about Singapore's achievements. Rankings are objective, and probably why every other country highlight theirs in the lead. Warpslider (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As RFC defaults to 30 days, I waited till the end to avoid drawn out discussions. I will post some response in the evening, as additional points werer brought up today and Monday is a busy time.Wrigleygum (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support in principle. Many of those rankings seem rather arbitrary and specific; if they have received coverage in reliable sources, they can be summarized in the lead and covered in the body. Certainly rather WP:UNDUE for the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I am drive-by opposing because there are too many here who are simply not objective. Most are commenting on the ranks, so just a glance at London, New York Hong Kong, I can see immediately there are more listings there than this article. For London, 3/4 quarters (3 of 4 paragraphs) are rankings and tourist attractions. Hong Kong uses the phrase "(some rank)… of the world" a dozen times! New York is so full of it I find it hard to read. Either all the big cities are all over-rated, or everyone is being petty on this city, go figure.<Panacealin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

— Panacealin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support Simplify! Clarify! Amplify! Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose. Support shortening the lede in general. WP:LEAD suggests 4 paragraphs as a good rule of thumb, this article is currently at six. However, I don't think the specific approach to shortening whose reversion prompted the RfC is the right one. I would move some of that information to the body of the article rather than remove it entire, which would let us go even further shortening the lede without losing any information. Chris Hallquist (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per requester — my first impression on looking at it without reading in detail is that the lead is probably too long; reading through it and it's definitely giving more emphasis on comparative weightings than feels appropriate. (And, if Panacealin's comment above is accurate, then other global cities' leads should probably be reviewed too, though it's worth bearing in mind that we're talking about the lead for a nation-state, as well as for a city here, so comparison to other country articles is also important.) Looking at the current revision, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the lead should probably each be simplified into a single paragraph of roughly the length of paragraph 3, I'd suggest. Moving much of the excised content into the right sections lower down the article would provide an appropriate level of detail for a lead without removing content that is arguably encyclopædic, if a little over-aggrandising (per CMD). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC), via Feedback request service

• Length is the first item addressed in 'specific issues' and is comparable to the leading cities. And as a City-state, there are more aspects of both a City and Country to write about.

"..other global cities' leads should probably be reviewed too" - Not that I agree with you (since they set the pace for Singapore's lead) but if you decide to start an RFC on NYC and London, it would broaden discussions on this topic as they are more established and active. Now that we have a number of (previously) uninvolved editors and back from vacation, I will be updating the 'Specific issues' shortly.Wrigleygum (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support I agree completely with the proposal here: the lead is much too long, and reads like an advertorial for Singapore rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as Wrigleygum seem to have done significant work to put forth his arguments. The word count comparison provided are within the averages of even GA articles so its not an issue at all. There should not be a double standard that it is ok to ignore other cities with similar format, content and length, yet mark it as a negative here. And it is true that people hardly read past the lead unless I am doing research or very interested in the subject. So we need to put out the relevant information that tells the reader why the nation is important in a world. Just one item I recall to suggest is to include the widely reported OECD education rank which Singapore is best known for, in addition to the economic ones.- Warpslider (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - Please check Above contributor's contribution history. After an edit on 29 June 2010, the next edit was on 11 July 2016 on this very RFC? Considering the lack of contributions, I won't be surprised if this is an SPA/Canvassed vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should an island be counted as the southern most tip of a continent

We can read it in the introduction that Singapore is at the southernmost tip of continental Asia. I wonder if that should be revised as continent should be a continuous landmass, and that in this case, the southernmost tip of continental Asia should be Malaysia. If islands are included, then the southernmost tip of the continent should be Indonesia instead. In neither alternatives should Singapore be regarded as the southernmost tip of the continental Asia. Xxjkingdom (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually Singapore is linked via the Johor-Singapore Causeway, so its one continuous landmass. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Given every single source considers Singapore to be an island, it is emphatically not part of a continuous Asian landmass. CMD (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sport and recreation

Why does this section not state that Singapore has won every World Cup or World Championship that has ever been held? Surely that would be more in keeping with the rest of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.174 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 July 2016

No citations for that. But many hoping Peter Lim gets @Christiano citizenship so we have a chance next World Cup.hope.-- 182.16.235.89 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Singapore's lead: Specific issues

A more structured response with individual paragraph comments and other details could be WP:TLDR as someone suggested. So it's probably better to address immediate and recurring issues for now. I may consolidate an FAQ.

Brief overview

A vast majority of visitors will only read an article's lead, or just part of it. With info-overload and mobile devices, our [attention spans is shorter than a goldfish] - this guides us to concisely present the most important facts to know about the article's subject before they leave.

Most cities/countries have longer histories, culture, big nature, so forth. For Singapore since independence, it is best known for its economic success achieved in a short time span, stable governance and racial harmony. So this will be the lead's focus, with some rankings as objective measure.

Article Length

As a City-state, Singapore has aspects of both a city and country to write about. Longer is justified, however the lead has been kept within the average of similar articles. Word counts (of leads) for comparison:

UK - 641

USA - 577

London - 578

New_York_City - 682

Singapore - 620

Comparable Articles (NYC, London) using "Statistics format":

Articles of the top-2 most influential cities - New York City and London are most appropriate as Singapore is a city-state where its major rankings vs comparable cities make sense - i.e. hub of Finance, Forex, Port, Airport, so forth. Both NYC and London have adopted this format for years with the most active editors.

I started in earnest on this article last august by scanning major cities and country talk pages. So instead of repeating the same arguments here, you can read some of their discussions first (esp NYC, London). London is also rated GA-class article, an important fact no one mentioned above.

Quotes from NYC Talk page, supporting use of 'Statistics' format:

"And some people want figures in their prose. If you remove all figures for a city as superlative as NY it would look like a promotional brochure, some figures sounds more professional and encyclopedic"

"Because NY's good at so many things it's hard to make it sound very like WP:TONE and very not like WP:PEACOCK."

"Personally, I like the style of the Wikipedia NYC article better. It uses specific and precise details to support its points, which are rather interesting claims about New York's standing in the world. The Britannica style seems too vague and sweeping"

"Standard fare for a megacity lead, not much different in basic format from others. New York City just happens to be chock full of superlatives."

"Personally, I like this style as well. If not for stats, then readers would be wondering, "Why is New York City important?" "

As a whole, these quotes indicate a strong preference for "Statistics-style" (as opposed to old Britannica-style) format in the comparable city articles. Because it is concise, more data to be presented. Singapore's lead adopts the format but does not mimic their contents. For example, we avoid touristy landmarks altogether, instead photos can depict the city's attractions with greater impact, although they will be further down the article's body.

Rankings choice & Presentation

As Singapore is has more metrics than most others, the lead highlight mainly top-3 rankings (some others highlight only their top rankings). Generally highest achievement are listed first. The following were chosen to represent a range of sectors. In all, 9 rankings in Singapore lead is less than comparable city article leads:

• "Easiest place to do business" (World Bank's flagship report)
• most "Tech-ready" nation (WEF) - Global IT Report
• top Meetings City (UIA) - A component of M.I.C.E., indicative of business hub vibrancy
• city with "best investment potential" (BERI) - 18 consecutive years
• 2nd-most competitive country (WEF) - a flagship report
• 3rd-largest foreign exchange centre - currency trading hub
• 3rd-leading financial centre
• 3rd-largest oil refining and trading centre
• 2nd busiest container port

Presentation

• To provide a focus and convey stats/ranks concisely, they are listed matter-of-factly in a single sentence/paragraph - more compact than other leads that have them spread across many paragraphs
• Source of the ranking (notability) are useful and abbreviated in brackets, i.e. WEF, EIU - hovering over the link gives the organisation's name. Comparable leads often omit them, so readers have to search for the sources themselves.
• Specific is preferred over "Expressions that lack precision" WP:MOS, i.e.

- "3rd most competitive" over "one of the most competitive" (which can refer to any of the top-10 or -20).

• Statements that lack precision are also easier to dispute and remove
• Brevity over wordiness. Short over long words

Some alternatives:

• Global Cities Competitiveness Index (EIU), 3rd-World
• Global Innovation (WIPO, Insead), 1st-Asia, 6th-World
• Business Environment (EIU), 1st-World
• Most Transparent country (WEF)
• Least Corrupt economy, 1st-Asia, 6th-World

WP:Lead guidelines

WP guides do not stress strict adherence. For instance, WP:LEAD says to keep the lead free of citations, but hardly any articles follow this. Singapore article does.

Similarly, 4-6 paragraphs is not material, as they can always be combined. The consideration is that readability may be compromised.

Paragraphs (comments left out)

1 - Official name, nicknames, geography

2 - History

3 - Economic metrics

4 - Social metrics, demographics, language, culture

5 - Governance, trust poll, influence

6 - Parliamentary system, membership in international organisations

-added by Wrigleygum (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

-updated Wrigleygum (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Comparison Examples:

A quick extract follows - 9 rankings in Singapore (para-6) vs London (10), NYC (>a dozen)

1) London (10):

- leading financial centre

- fifth- or sixth-largest metropolitan area GDP in the world.

- world's most-visited city as measured by international arrivals[27] and has the

- world's largest city airport system measured by passenger traffic.

- world's leading investment destinations,

- hosting more international retailers and ultra high-net-worth individuals than any other city.

- largest concentration of higher education institutes in Europe,

- first in the world university rankings.

- first in the world in software, multimedia development and design, and

- shares first position in technology readiness.

- Wrigleygum (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

2) New York:

- most linguistically diverse city in the world.

- most populous in the United States,

- gross metropolitan product (GMP) of nearly US$1.39 trillion, ranking first nationally

- three of the world's ten most visited tourist attractions

- most photographed city in the world.

- world's busiest pedestrian intersections,

- most economically powerful city

- leading financial center of the world,

- world's two largest stock exchanges by total market capitalization, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ.

- real estate market is among the most expensive in the world.

- Chinatown incorporates the highest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere,

- New York City Subway is one of the most extensive metro systems worldwide,

- Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, ranked among the top 35 in the world

- Wrigleygum (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Responses

As you're drawing on discussions from other stable articles to support your changes, I'll note that your changes moved away from a stable lead that had been agreed upon by multiple editors on this talkpage at an earlier point.

Regarding comparing to similar articles, I understand why you have chosen the ones you have, but that doesn't mean this should imitate them. There's simple comparisons going the other way as well. None of the current FA country lists have six lead paragraphs. Some even manage with three. Similarly, one FA city article has six paragraphs. Most have 3, some even 2. I haven't done a word count comparison, but I suspect the differences would show through even more strongly. (New York and London notably have four paragraphs each, albeit all a bit longer than the current six here.)

Regarding your specific quotes from the New York discussion, the first one makes the point that the lead shouldn't sound like a promotional brochure. The current lead fails regarding this in the first sentence, listing various nicknames (which neither London nor New York does) and then listing a couple of superlatives (whereas New York and London merely note their being the most populous cities in their countries, and in London's case that it is the capital). Much of the remainder of the lead reads similarly.

The second and fourth quotes correctly note that it is hard to avoid superlatives, yet reading the New York lead none of their superlatives are as brazen as the ones here. Nowhere for example does the New York lead directly note a list of standings, nor does it go out of its way to point out which organisations have given it the rankings it has. Furthermore it notes widely understandable standings (eg. "linguistically diverse", "most photographed city"), as opposed to technical (eg. "technology-ready nation", "most admired company") and obscure (eg. "International meetings"). Nor does the New York lead read link an attempt to list everything it ranks positively on, with a descending list from 1st in the world to 3rd in the world, and without refinements to smaller regions like Asia when its world standing isn't at the top.

The third quote is correct that the New York lead uses specific details to support its points. It's details are well-integrated into its text, whereas the ones here are not.

As for the fifth quote, the stats in the lead here don't show importance so much as they read as promotional listings, hence the IP post above "Why does this section not state that Singapore has won every World Cup or World Championship that has ever been held? Surely that would be more in keeping with the rest of the page."

In summary, your comparison is flawed. The lead here has issues not found in the New York and London leads, and has a completely different style, reading as a promotional advertisement than a serious overview. CMD (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd agree. Way too many wiki-links and rankings for a lede. Even UAE, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong does not have that much. To add on, they have rankings that actually reflect the city/city-state/state negative aspects. There obviously needs to have some form of balance. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the number of rankings in the lead is over the top, and amounts to WP:PEACOCK. It also appears that only positive ratings have been selected. I've just removed some surplus detail (there's no need to discuss an airline's standing in the article on it's home country!) and added the Freedom House classification noted later in the article to even up the stuff about the system of government. But there's scope for much bigger changes. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Most of your edits are fine but RFC on the lead is in progress, so will revert those for discussion. Changi-SIA standings shows a small country like Singapore can succeed in building the best airport-airline despite its size, so its related. "Partly-free" was removed long ago by others, see Talk:Singapore/2015 archive#Flawed democracy and income_inequality. Also, no other country's lead highlights them afaik.

A quick extract of #rankings below shows Singapore para6 (9) vs London (11), NYC (>a dozen). Wrigleygum (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to want to pick and choose only positive rankings, which is a rather bad motivation. I don't get the logic behind the lead spruiking the country's main airline, but not mentioning that it's not considered a true democracy. I'm not seeing any consensus in that discussion, much less in regards to the Freedom House rating, and have restored this material. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D, I do not go out of my way to look for negatives. Balance is encouraged by the guides, but not many of the leading cities/countries have them in the lead. Unless everyone thinks western democracies does not have any?.Wrigleygum (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrigleygum, consensus is against you here. You have been advised by multiple editors and most of us have way more experience than you do with editing here. I suggest you to listen to us and accordingly drop the stick and move on. Also please don't remove the TOC from this page again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I was trying _NOTOC_ to suppress TOC on on just the "specific issues" section and did not realise it affects the main TOC on top.Wrigleygum (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Photomontage

@Lemongirl942, can you paste a link to the WP policy/guide that disallow this? I have a problem finding it. The template follows Hong Kong's. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We do stuff by consensus here. Country article generally do not have a photomontage. There are many issues with it such as quality of images, issues of fair representation and display on small screen devices. So an explicit consensus is required before implementing it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"explicit consensus is required before implementing it" - This sounds like some policy/guide, so is there a link to "explicit concensus?". Wrigleygum (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Also see WP:WIKILAWYERING. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see what a montage of a collection of tourist attractions in Singapore adds to the article, and it is unconventional to include it in the lead in country articles (where maps and the like are typically used to orient readers). Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

On WP guide on images, it only mentions concensus for selection of images, not that images or a montage cannot be inserted by anyone, especially if no one else is taking any initiative.Wrigleygum (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia article, and images should be included where they enhance reader understanding and do not clutter up the page. See also WP:IG. CMD (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What about Hong Kong?-they are using the country infobox. and I've seen montages in the body of country articles, so we just move it further down? Wrigleygum (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss that on the Hong Kong page. But over here a montage doesn't really add anything encyclopaedic. It is also problematic for small screen devices which is one of the reasons we tend to use montages judiciously. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrigleygum, The reason google picks up and verbatim shows Wikipedia content is because it is moderated and we strive for high-quality encyclopaedic content. It is very tedious when all your replies are "but someone else is doing the same" . A lot of experienced editors are patiently discussing specific points. Wikipedia is not a forum to make Singapore look good in Search results. Vinay84 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

We realise our aim is not to make Singapore appear as good as we can or put everything we find in other articles into this one, but instead is to create a high-quality encyclopaedia article, as described in our Wikipedia:Assessment scale. CMD (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is illogical when every other City article has photo montages. Even the devastated Aleppo has a good montage. -Sgpedian 203.78.15.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Note that Lemongirl942 says "We do stuff by consensus here".

As for "many issues with it such as quality of images, issues of fair representation and display on small screen devices." - this would contradict every place article that has photo montages. But not a problem if enclosed in an infobox. Warpslider (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Warpslider, it is very clear you don't have enough experience editing Wikipedia. You attitude and pointy actions are not welcome. Consider this a warning. If you continue to do it, you are pushing yourself towards a block. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl92, he made a good point as most city articles simply have them in the infobox template and you have avoided replying to it so far. There is no need to warn or comment about other editors when your own actions and comments list below seems to be much worse, sounding like intimidation and there are Wikipedia against that. So please just explain the technical issues so it can be put up. =203.78.15.149 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? This is a country article. We simply do not have photomontages for these as it doesn't add anything encyclopaedic. This is precisely why I said that Warpslider doesn't have enough experience. They simply do not understand how consensus works and that we hold stuff to academic standards here. One of their actions was pointy as well, which is grounds for blocking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Percentage of millionaires

Hi! I'm new to the wikipedia community so forgive me if this isn't the appropriate place for my post. I wanted to suggest an edit to the following sentence in the Singapore article:

"Singapore has the world's highest percentage of millionaires, with one out of every six households having at least one million US dollars in disposable wealth. This excludes property, businesses, and luxury goods, which if included would increase the number of millionaires, especially as property in Singapore is among the world's most expensive"

I was speaking to my godmother, who lives in Singapore and we were quite astounded by this statistic. I went back to the original article, which reports that OF SINGAPOREANS WHO OWN HOUSES (which is a rather small percentage of the populations), one in six are millionaires. I wanted to suggest changing the wording to reflect this, as written it seems as though 1 out of every 6 households in general has >1 million dollars!Aaluko (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting, however you haven't given the source of your statement. Is it from a reliable source? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

1 in 6 are millionaires in singapore what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.61.127 (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MISTAKE on date of joining Federation of Malaysia

The article says that Singapore joined the Federation of Malaysia on 31 August 1963

It didn't. That was about two weeks later.

Singapore declared independence from the UK on 31 August 1963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.198.105 (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed --Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 02:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Lemongirl942, all the statements are sourced in body content - widely acknowledged, not boosterism. After 2-mths RFC and forum shopping, you can still state specific concerns and 'unsourced' here or under Singapore's lead: Specific issues Wrigleygum (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The results of the RFC is above and I'm just following it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have only done 1 edit diff. This is not sourced and is clearly WP:UNDUE for the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not 'clearly undue' to me - which statements in the para is not sourced or discuss statements you are unconvinced about. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I will have to go off shortly but will address any specific issues when you have listed them and have a consensus. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There are no sources for your statement. In fact it seems you inserted a bunch of it into the lead last December and you had no consensus for inserting it. So the burden lies on you now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

POV and WP:UNDUE in lead

The RFC was recently closed and since then the lead contains a bunch of puffery and boosterism. I am adding the tag per the RFC as it needs a rewrite. Please do not remove the tag without discussion (it needs a consensus for removal). I would appreciate if others can help out to trim the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we go by steps and see what is undue and what is not --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Step 1

Diff.

Firsly I don't think there's anything called "Nation's core principles". It's unsourced as well. And anyway, this isn't even relevant for the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: As a Singaporean, I agree. I think it's quite embarrassing how the lead text comes off as an advertisement bragging about admirable aspects about Singapore, as opposed to merely documenting Singapore from a neutral standpoint. I mean, I am proud of my country, but that would be better suited for a tourist guide, not an encyclopaedia.

I would do away with phrases like "the Garden City, the Red Dot" in the lead sentence (absolutely unnecessary) and either shift them somewhere else in the article or rid the article entirely of it. In the second paragraph, the "most technology ready" thing also needs to go. So does - "top international meetings city (UIA)", "best investment potential", best blah blah this, best blah blah that, it's cringeworthy and doesn't belong here. Everything else seems fine, but I reckon it could still do with a bit more cleaning up. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a local too. Of the rankings, I agree with you the one that sounds promotional is 'best investment potential', I am partial about 'international meetings city', whereas 'technology ready' is not quite obvious but is an important IT ranking. Actually any rank can sound like bragging really but it's an achievement like an olympic medal and most major cities have it too. The nicknames should stay as it's written up in the media on a regular even daily basis and readers may wonder why our country is known by that. As for core principles, a google search turns up many hits on the terms but they seems not to be official.Shiok (talk)

Has fallen off the first place for "Easiest Place to Do Business" (http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings), so I'm removing that from the article. Mount2010 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As this process seems to have stalled, I've WP:BOLDly removed most of the business rankings, replacing them with succinct text on what their messages are where this wasn't already in place. I think that this reflects the outcomes of the RfC and the above discussion. I've also removed a reference to Singapore being a permanent observer country to the Arctic Council as it didn't seem important enough to mention in the lead - as the Council's article notes, this status doesn't give Singapore any formal say in the group. Singapore is a more significant member of many other organisations not mentioned here, not to mention being a de-facto permanent guest member of the G20. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if uninvolved editors would chime in after the tags placed at the front. The previous Rfc was also closed a day after I updated Singapore's lead: Specific issues denying more editors the opportunity to read and post comments so the closing summary may not be representative anyway.

- [Singapore's lead: Specific issues

- [Comparison Examples:]

Please comment on individual rankings and alternatives, other specific issues here, including the following additions: Wrigleygum (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Arctic Council

• classified as being "partly free" by Freedom House

This is not inserted in any other country article, as far as I know.

• Rankings and alternatives (from "Specific issues" above)

• "Easiest place to do business" (World Bank's flagship report)
• most "Tech-ready" nation (WEF) - Global IT Report
• top Meetings City (UIA) - A component of M.I.C.E., indicative of business hub vibrancy
• city with "best investment potential" (BERI) - 18 consecutive years
• 2nd-most competitive country (WEF) - a flagship report

I suggested an addition or alternative earlier of 'OECD Global School ranking', perhaps in place of 'International Meetings City'.Warpslider (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind. I presented all my reasons above, copied from "Specific issues" and would have been open to discuss. There were comments about the term "Tech-Ready", a description from WEF itself and I can't think off a better one except a wordy, "1st-Global Information Technology Report"Wrigleygum (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest removing 'best investment potential' as well? -sounds a bit promotional. Shiok (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind, just consensus on which ones gives an overall better representation of nation. Economic ranks first because Singapore is best known for that. But certainly social ones like education, health are also well-known. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I just recall London has a similar entry. Have a look at [London] comparisons section - "world's leading investment destination". Wrigleygum (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Core principles - meritocracy, secularism and multiracialism

(NEW)Proposed replacement of first sentence

"Singapore promotes multiculturalism and multireligious harmony through a range of official policies"

This does avoid previous concerns. Would it be too long to mention that some stern policies are meant to curb hate speech, discrimination etc? Shiok (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably, you can always add to the body first. Good point -address concerns on certain limits on civil liberties. Wrigleygum (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(Rest of Para-5 sentences)

It 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. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

References

The statement is from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - reference 1 above. If you are researching on this, keep in mind "Core principles" may be stated in a number of ways, like 'core/fundamental/guiding - principles/values/pillars' and similar. Meritocracy may be described as a policy as well as a principle in civil service and GLCs. Racial and religious social harmony (secularism) is heavily emphasised in social and political policies and mentioned on a regular basis at every other national and community events, including the current Elected Presidency debate. Multiracialism Secularism and Equality is enshrined in our Singapore National Pledge and the reason for the creation of Singapore in the first place. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We require reliable secondary and third party sources. Your first source cannot be used here. The second source doesn't say anywhere that the "core principles of Singapore" are "meritocracy, secularism and multiracialism". Those are policies of the government and the ruling party - not principles of the nation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942, even though I agree the "core principles" - as stated - may not be official, the founding constitution and pledge are written by the same founding party which has not changed. I wonder if you have a different viewpoint where a nation's principles would be stated. I do think the other content should not be removed as you only doubt the "core principles" and Nick-D only justified removing the Arctic Council. So the other remaining content is the purpose of this section you started to discuss. I have in mind and agree with the very first RFC comment above by A D Monroe who stated: "Singapore is a very non-typical country, so some such info on how it's viewed is useful" and that trimmings need to specified and discussed. Shiok (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Bold - she still need to abide by the rules of WP:Consensus with other interested parties here. Warpslider (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both.Wrigleygum (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

With your experience, you must have used this countless times: WP:Consensus - "Decision making involves an effort to incorporate all editors legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Warpslider (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, a pointy action. All I'm going to say is multiple editors have been blocked for actions like the one you did. It's very obvious you are an SPA and you don't have enough experience to understand how Wikipedia works. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nick-D Thank you. I largely agree with the changes. I am specifically warning Wrigleygum not to POV push here. If Wrigleygum continues to do this, I will push for a block or PBAN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't deserve this agressive tone. Mostly I've been open to valid additions and edits and undid mainly the Bolds because there is no discussion whatsoever. I have not reverted "core principles" nor "partly-free" and left it alone for consensus. Repeating "POV pushing" does not make my discussions so. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you are an SPA here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Step 2 (Older versions)

I actually had a look at a previous version of the lead. It reads much better and summarises the information well. Except for a sentence in the fourth paragraph, it is much better written than the present version. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not better, just different and missing much of the current information. There is one line I'm interested in - "the country promotes multiculturalism through a range of official policies". If you are bothered with "core values", we could use this - "the country promotes multiculturalism and multireligious harmony through a range of official policies"? Wrigleygum (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That earlier version also looks good to me, and I agree that the wording is superior. Wrigleygum, I have no intention at all to engage with your awful edit warring. Edit warring against the results of an RfC is terrible conduct, and appears to be the main purpose of your recent editing [7]. As this is totally blockable conduct, there's no requirement for anyone to engage with you: I would suggest that you drop the stick and move on before you are blocked. I'd also widen this to the two other accounts which have suddenly come out of the woodwork and are pretending that the RfC above doesn't exist - this really is awful conduct, and will likely lead to blocks. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D, you have left your message on the wrong editor's page. That revert is not by me although I agree with the principle of his revert and appreciate the support. I am sure you have used the same reasoning of WP:consensus against many other editors in your long experience. No one wants to edit-war, least of all me spending more time on this..but you have continually declined to discuss on this talk page first before posting your Bold edits. So you are not showing WP:consensus building in good faith. The reasoning I gave for the statistical format of rankings used by most major cities like NYC, London, Tokyo and other specific issues are completely ignored. I think Wikipedia would frown on your conduct if I may say so in turn. I doubt that you actually take the time to read back on what was posted by me weeks ago and even the points today else you would not to writing what you just did. One thing I learn today from your posting - "not to mention being a de-facto permanent guest member of the G20" is new to me so appreciate the info. If you could, do comment on other issues I posted and the proposed rankings change.Wrigleygum (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually you did in fact revert me. Why pretend otherwise? Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not pretending. The most recent ones you likely referred to are not mine. The only one I did was 18 hrs ago just past midnight here.Wrigleygum (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Further Removal

@Lemongirl942: Can you take a look at this:

Singapore is a global commerce, finance and transport hub. Its standings include: the most "technology-ready" nation (WEF), top International-meetings city (UIA), city with "best investment potential" (BERI), 2nd-most competitive country, 3rd-largest foreign exchange market, 3rd-largest financial centre, 3rd-largest oil refining and trading centre; and the second busiest container port. The country has also been identified as a tax haven. link

This looks like a bit WP:NPOV. Should we clean it up? NgYShung ^huh? 05:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

NgYShung, I've asked you a question of interest on your Talk page (WP:RFC says to discuss with closer first if we disagree with the conclusion). Not only have you ignored my post on your page, so now you're carrying a flag, entrenching your opinion and instigating others? Do you know of any other RFC closer (admin or non-admin) doing what you are currently up to, after 'helping' to close the RFC? Wrigleygum (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

so now you're carrying a flag, entrenching your opinion and instigating others Woah, that's a pretty bad accusation. Wrigleygum, I suggest you drop the stick and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Let him speak, unless he's installed you as spokesman. Drop "drop the stick" cliches - you've used them countless times.. getting worn. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

wrong home ownership figures

90% of citizens do not own their homes and property, especially public housing . U are wrong here. They are on lease to citizens. stop this please. This is misleading on many parts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylegamer (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed you have recently edited the article to reflect your personal beliefs, I presume. Please remember, this is Wikipedia. It seems that this is your second time vandalising this article, as reading from your talk page. Gs97 (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

We go by verifiability. The 90% home ownership rate is well cited. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Well, the 90% home ownership rate is correct except that it means 90% of the homes are occupied by owners instead of 90% citizens owning their own homes. Which makes this a misguided barometer of measuring a country's success.Mohann Jasturba (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WHAT DO U MEAN BY VANDALISING THE ATICLE? .. BBC citation is not valid AND ITS NOT A STATISTICAL ARTICLE . Please cite from official sources . WHAT DO U MEAN BY MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS? i THINK U HAVE YR OWN POLITICAL AGENDA IN REVERTING BACK THE EDITS HERE IS AN ARTICLE WHICH SAYS THIS: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/different-kinds-of-leases/3036526.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylegamer (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Section arrangement

Chipmunkdavis, is there a link to 'standard template'? Who decides and why would not all the countries follow them? I think most of them have History and Geography first Shiok (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a template for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC - Inclusion of sentence about Gallup poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RfC is about the lead of this article as of this version. A previous RFC was closed with broad consensus to trim the lead. Continuing the work, this RFC specifically looks at this sentence in the lead

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.

Considering the relevant policies WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT and other country articles such as Australia (which is an FA), should the above sentence be included in the lead? Please indicate your choice in the "Survey" section and bold your choices Keep and Remove. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove This doesn't belong in the lead. It is sourced to a primary source and more importantly is UNDUE for the lead. It doesn't add any encyclopaedic value and is essentially random trivia. It is unfortunate that despite a previous RFC closing with consensus to trim the lead, a bunch of agenda-driven SPAs are trying to status-quo stonewall any changes in the article. Hence, I have no option but to launch another RFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing admin I am seeing quite a lot of SPA activity on this thread. 2 IPs who have hardly ever edited, have come along to drive to vote a "keep". There is also a discussion about 3 SPA accounts who are trying to stonewall changes and adding a bunch of puffery. Please also see this thread at ANI for more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: The "Note" by the SPA below should probably convince you. The SPAs are essentially trying to game the system by using multiple votes. WP:NOTUNANIMITY applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Note RFC Proposer is micro-managing and expressing irrelevent comments. 2 IPs noted, but WP:RFC seem to expressly encourage them - All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. - Wrigleygum (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Keeps and Oppose appear even and I replied to some of the latter without response yet. The rest of the Opposers (4-5) are mainly single-sentence votes, or saying 'undue' without elaboration, or speculating about the source without evidence. Wrigleygum (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Remove Completely unnecessary, and too detailed for the lead. The preceding sentence starting that "It 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"." covers this topic in sufficient detail, making this sentence unnecessary WP:PEACOCK-style material for the lead. It seems OK to mention this in the body of the article, but I note also that source rovides no evidence to support its claim that this is "one of the highest ratings recorded" as it only provides data for Singapore. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's in the opinion piece and data I just updated. See below Wrigleygum (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Remove from the lead, but keep in the body of the article. Per WP:Lead the lead is a summary of the most important contents. I think the sentence is important for the body, but not the lead.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CuriousMind01, most content in the body will not be read at all, which is why -for lack of time, my focus has been on the lead. I feel it is important enough for people to know that most are satisfied, if not happy here. Hope you have time to read - ["Specific Issues"] above. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that it may be an important point, but if every important point -- and the full detail behind every important point -- appears in the lead, then we would move the entire article into the lead ;) Indeed, at its current length, most people won't read the whole lead. I think we can make the point without a full sentence -- and the article will be stronger as a result. Chris vLS (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I anticipated the length concern, so it is the first item dealt with in ["Article length", specific issues] above. The word-count is around the average of the major global cities. Trust in government and institutions is probably the most important national issue in most countries today and the only statisic in the lead (that is non-economic) - so not just another detail:) Wrigleygum (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Trust in government and institutions is probably the most important national issue in most countries today Citation needed for this. We go by weight and weight doesn't necessarily mean importance. The basic problem is this is undue for the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I said "probably" because some researchers may have other things in mind. So far, have not found one that says Trust is of "low importance". But you can do some work and list other metrics which you feel are more important. Be glad to listen. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I also think, in an informal OR way that one should take into account how freely Singaporeans would criticize the government to a gallup pollster. 1980s national TV (government) jingle in S'pore I still remember: "Good, better, best. Never let it rest. For productivity, make your better best." It is not that I think the Singaporean trust in a government that has done them well is not noteworthy. I just do not think this should be in the lead (it's a poll, we don't have the exact question or any info on the sampling, etc.), though I see no reason for it not to be mentioned anecdotally in the body. SashiRolls (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Remove I agree, remove entirely, it's not even remotely accurate for the real world, Gallup is not a legitimate source for any poll, they "find" what ever the people who pay them to perform the "poll" want them to find. If there were legitimate references and citations showing such percentages backed by testable news articles that are legitimate, then the text could be retrained using those citations, however Gallup is notorious pay-for-findings. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Damotclese, your opinion cannot be considered as it is speculation. But you must have formed the idea reading it somewhere. Perhaps you can post some references about Gallup or polling companies in general that state the same? Afaik, Gallup is one of the oldest survey companies and widely quoted daily.Wrigleygum (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it is a primary source and undue for the lead. By your logic I could quote another random Gallup poll which says Singapore the ‘least positive’ country in the world and add it to the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You're on a tangent. He is speculating Gallup is not a legitimate source and I asked for citations on that. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice try avoiding the question. Do you think gallup polls deserve a mention. If yes, we could also mention Singaporeans are productive, highly disciplined citizens who are not enjoying their lives much --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

We can debate anything. In this reply, you are obscuring my reply to him - I was asking for info on his speculation about Gallup being unreliable (not about being a Primary source). These comments cannot be considered if there is nothing to prove the speculation. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - The line of statistic describes the Trust level of its citizens, which is different from the preceding line - "It is noted for its effective, pragmatic and incorrupt governance and civil service" - usually views of editors, analysts and think tanks. It is concise and imparts useful information for a more controlled democracy like Singapore.Wrigleygum (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• That's still undue for the lead. By your logic I could add Singapore the ‘least positive’ country in the world to the lead. We simply don't do that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• If you have the time. There are thousands of metrics. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Remove the statistic, but keep the idea. The lead can summarize a point without reiterating the evidence behind it, as that evidence should appear in the article itself. Looking at the second and third paragraphs of the Australia lead, for example, several points are made -- and the citation given -- without going into specific statistics. Chris vLS (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a major issue for most countries and where Singapore has consistently done well. I found some interesting links to research and talks, like this clip (rather than long reads) :

The collapse of trust in government: Will democracy survive? -- [Youtube. Streamed live on May 19, 2016]

70% of national populations surveyed do not trust their governments. Problems such as corruption flourish, which further weakens the fabric of democracy. How can government leaders work to build trust, integrity, and values in government?

- Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford

Statistics are always useful to show its significance. Please keep it. Shiok (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is a major issue for most countries and where Singapore has consistently done well Umm, it's not our job to highlight stuff where Singapore has done well. Also your citation is not a reliable source, so the issue about being WP:UNDUE remains. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No editor has a job in wikipedia.org except the salaried ones. It's your prerogative to refute what others posts. To claim WP:Undue in this RFC, you will need to evidence that Trust in Government/Institutions is not important enough in governance and politics. Wrigleygum (talk)

• Remove This piece of information might be warranted in the body of the article but it seems quite undue in the lead of the article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove: The lead should only sum up the general gist of the article and we need to keep WP:LEAD in mind. (summoned by bot). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment on RFC Responses. Some of the comments, like the preceeding ones by Bmbaker88 and Proc27 make no meaningful points, simply saying 'undue' in lead and 'keep WP:Lead in mind' with no comments on the content itself. Please note that for Consensus, you need to post your arguments for or against the substance of the sentence in question. WP:RFC guidelines - The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments... Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Warpslider (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Most experience editors understand that and they are perfectly good policy based reasons. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I spent some time listening to the 'Collapse of Trust in Government' video link by Shiok. It is a panel discussion at a conference on Challenges in Government. As an example of countries with high Trust by citizens, Singapore was the first country mentioned by the panel and a number of times in the discussion. This is a clear endorsement for the country and there was certainly no Singaporeans on the panel or audience. It is one of the more notable datum for readers to know about the country and thus due in the lead. Warpslider (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• That's not a reliable source. I can point a bunch of random discussions about Singapore and freedom of press. Also stuff like "This is a clear endorsement for the country" is not a valid reason per WP:NOTADVOCATE. Our aim here is not to make Singapore look good or bad, but to simply add encyclopaedic information with due weight. All of this is undue in the lead, particularly sourced to a primary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• You do need to hold off repeating terms like "encyclopedic, undue" without elaboration, POV. As for primary source, read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD - "Primary" does not mean "bad"...Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Uh, that thing you are citing is an ESSAY. WP:SECONDARY is part of a policy. We determine due or undue weight based on the prevalence in reliable sources. As such, something which is only reported in a random Gallup Poll, sourced to a primary source, is undue here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• In such cases, we can refer to 3rd party opinion.. Here, I suspect it will go around in circles.

• Remove Given the source, is WP:UNDUE in the lede.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep yes this should be highlighted to explain that Singapore is not typical in the region, Asean and Asia especially. Just in the last few days, world news are reporting many deeply divided countries, like SKorea, US, HK, and many more if we widen the time frame to a few months. It is easy for nations in close proximity to be lumped together otherwise.=203.78.15.149 (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE. Seriously, "yes this should be highlighted to explain that Singapore is not typical in the region, Asean and Asia especially"? We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not advocate for Singapore. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Talk page debates and chatter on news of the day are just that. The sentence proper does not advocate anything. It just says - Trust of the government is high, with the source figures to back it up. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Remove WP:UNDUE for the lead. I remember enjoying the years I spent in Singapore, still, Wikipedia is meant to be WP:NPOV, and the confidence in the government of a country at a given time t is probably not relevant enough to lead an encyclopedia article on the country and its place in history. This would need to be connected to a specific government in a politics section, I would have thought. SashiRolls (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• That's a good point, but in this non-typical nation, the ruling party has been in power since independence (51 years) and had consistent popular mandate in electoral votes to govern, which "Trust in Government" plays a big part. Hope you will return again. Wrigleygum (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Given the multiple RS on the question, Singapore's long history on tax haven lists should be mentioned in the lead.SashiRolls (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Remove WP:UNDUE for the lead, especially given the source. Within the body it is possible to properly attribute the claim.Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Reading about OECD education performance below, I would comment that Gallup statistics are also used by OECD. People.. just search on the keywords and you get some of the reports and charts that provide measures of governance of the countries in the grouping. Gallup data is accessible behind a pay-wall by subscription. In this instance, Singapore's figures of 84% Trust are revealed in the opinion piece by Gallup itself owing to Lee's death - there is nothing better than to get it from the primary source itself. If I find anything else later I will provide it here. ..203.78.15.149 (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • even if it were in the opinion piece on Lee Kwan Yew -- which it isn't (there is no mention of 84% of Singaporeans trusting the gvt at a given time t in that article) -- I'm not sure that would be a crucial argument concerning whether a gallup poll should go in the lead or not.SashiRolls (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Eighty-four percent of people in Singapore indicate that they have confidence in the national government, one of the highest ratings in the world, and 85% express confidence in judicial systems and courts. - Sashirolls, this is the relevant Gallup text. Are you saying the article is not an opinion piece? - I'm a bit confused. Time t would be the point in time the writer wrote the piece. As far as I know, Gallup World Polls is a continuous one. We could add "As of 2014" if that is what you meant. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
      • How embarrassing! Sorry. I want to back out of this discussion for the time being, seeing as I'm making basic mistakes. Yes, I think that the date should be mentioned though. And ideally the date of the data being referenced by the opinion writer we source to in the body of the article.SashiRolls (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
        • No problem. Its really rare to see an apology in this Talk page! thanks. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, I do have some notes to add here which include OECD, and been trying to read more to organise it. I hope you can consider registering an account to contribute, need more of that thanks. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• @203.78.15.149:We do not use primary sources directly. We specifically require secondary third party sources to report stuff based on these primary sources. And a random Gallup poll for one particular year (sourced to a primary source) is undue weight. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD - "Primary" does not mean "bad"...Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• That's an essay. The policy is at WP:SECONDARY. The long standing consensus has been that primary sources are useful for verifiability and not for notability/weight. The problem here is WP:UNDUE which has not been addressed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Read WP:PRIMARY again. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.. "84% Trust" - quoting a statement of fact. Wrigleygum (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, {{Re|203.78.15.149} my sincere apologies! I have missed that sentence both times I've fact-checked this article because I was scanning for the number 84 I guess. Striking my mistake above.SashiRolls (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note:Discussion moved below. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is part of the survey discussions. You should not be moving it elsewhere. Copying relevant parts back. Shiok (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• The section below is for threaded discussion such as this. But anyway, I have moved it here now. Please do not selectively copy like you did just now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It looks quarrelsome here I am surprised..and why should we not be able to distance ourselves from our neighbors who are having protests every week from racism (Indonesia) to corruption (Malaysia) to equality issues. I mean we wish them well and to solve their problems soon but not everyone know enough about the region. Racial or social harmony in Singapore should be in the lead especially. Local hawker food is mentioned in any tourist write up but not here. Anyway trust in the country is a good substitute for some of these ideas and the high trust actually does match with the electoral votes where the present government won 70% last year. Many of us including myself want more opposition in parliament, but in the end we still trust them. Some of these opposers must be in denial of the government's many achievements but certainly a vocal minority if they are residents, so if Gallup figures are right these would be just around 15% of us.. Take care, be fair. 202.156.242.241 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

— 202.156.242.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment. Further to my comments above, the following are relevant background to justify inclusion of Trust in Government topic and statistic in the lead:

1. Gallup World Polls data is used by OECD for country studies in the grouping.
2. Confidence in Institutions: Definition and measurement

Data on confidence in institutions is taken from the Gallup World Poll, which is conducted in more than 150 countries around the world, and based on a common questionnaire, as translated into the predominant languages of each country

3. Why does Trust in Government matter?

Trust in government has been identified as one of the most important foundations upon which the legitimacy and sustainability of political systems are built. Trust is essential for social cohesion and well-being as it affects governments’ ability to govern and enables them to act without having to resort to coercion.

4. Methodology - Gallup Worldwide Research - Dates collected in all countries

- Gallup World Polls for Singapore 2014 (May-27—Aug-6): 1,000 interviews, Face-to-Face

5. A note on comparative score:

Switzerland has the highest OECD group score of 80% (in 2015).

relevant text - "On behalf of the OECD, Gallup World Poll led a survey among 1,000 Swiss citizens last year. Almost 80% of them said they trusted their government. This is the highest rate among all the 34 OECD countries." -Wrigleygum (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding these references! Worried about dates as I am I opened the file to find it was, as you had said, an annual poll, but that "Some condominiums were excluded due to restricted access. This exclusion represents no more than 12% of the population" That -- in itself -- is somewhat worrying, isn't it? (Not sure exactly what that means, but that has been a remark from 2005 to 2015.) I also notice that Tamil was not one of the survey languages. Am assuming Chinese is official Mandarin? All this talk is making me want to return. Wikipedia isn't good for the wallet. Humming, "Why Worry?" ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. Clearly WP:UNDUE in the lead and looks like special pleading or boosterism. -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right it does seem like pressing it and for all the effort, only depends on a single Admin's pov. I was reminded on talk that this may close shortly so just putting whatever I found out there. Is there particular 'unfavourable evidence' you think I am ignoring? Wrigleygum (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Wider discussion (if required)

Is an RfC the best way to deal with the lead sentence by sentence? I don't think it is. Specifics should be disucssed here first. It's less work for everyone involved, and may be quicker. CMD (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any other way. The combination of POV pushing, status quo stonewalling, refusal to understand the consensus, pointy editing and meatpuppetry by the SPAs is way too much. I don't want to expend my energy here. I actually prefer how the article is right now - a puffed up lead but with a nice tag warning that the lead is not neutral. Any reader will read and definitely realise that the lead is biased. So the effect of making Singapore look good is actually not going to work. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942, none of what you said above to 'sow the seeds of doubt' applies. Especially for WP:Consensus, you have been contradictory and bending it to suit your purpose. I think the few contributors here has actually been accommodating, or maybe intimidated. You have been talking about your experience over other editors, maybe too much it makes one feel invincible, and occasionally you should re-read Wiki principles: [Experience] - "No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers"

Also, what you said recently in talk and edit summaries - "Stop your POV pushing, or I will make sure you get blocked", "Consider this a warning..you are pushing yourself towards a block" (I only checked for last few days) sounds exactly like the examples quoted at WP:THREATEN - "On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether. Warpslider (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Your behaviour was pointy and I just warned you. Other editors have been blocked for pointy editing and you are pushing yourself towards it. Also, if a bunch of SPAs leave Wikipedia, it will make everyone's life a lot easier. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

More of the same by Lemongirl942:

["Continue edit warring and I will report you"]

["If you remove these again, I will report you"]

["PLEASE STOP YOUR DISRUPTIVE EDITING OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED"]

["Don't remove it. Continuing to do so will result in you being blocked"]

["NO please stop, unless you want to be blocked"]

["PLEASE STOP or you will be blocked"]

Some awful conduct only from edit summaries in September. Talk pages not checked yet.Warpslider (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am removing it in accordance with the template you mentioned - as it did not attract any new uninvolved editors for the whole month, only 2 existing ones on the first day. "When to remove - You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:.. 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

Arguing over POV tags, rather than substantive issues is super-lame. William Avery (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shifting some parts of lead paragraph to other sections

@Lemongirl942: I've been thinking of shifting the "Lion City, Garden City and Red Dot" part in the lead sentence to the Etymology section because I don't feel it's very appropriate for the lead, and is more of an extra/non-essential addition that should be listed further down elsewhere in the article. What do you think? Tiger7253 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If we go by what is done for FA like Australia, the etymology should mention the official names but exclude any epithets. For example, Down under is not mentioned (but is instead mentioned at Name_of_Australia#Other_epithets_and_nicknames). Likewise for Singapore, the etymology section should talk about the name Singapore/Singapura. I also think it should talk about "Temasek" as the name was historically used. Epithets like "Garden city" and "little red dot" should be mentioned at Names of Singapore. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames are very common in such articles and I have seen many interesting ones prominently placed in leads of good articles. Maybe Australian editors do not find their nicname interesting enough? 203.78.15.149 (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not see these nicknames or epithets in any country articles, particularly not in those which are FAs and have been peer reviewed by the community. Also the question is not about whether Australian editors don't find the nickname interesting enough - it's about encyclopaedic information. Btw, articles are not restricted to editors of a particular nationality. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Citing 2 FAs that do not have nicknames in lead does not mean that all others have to remove theirs. Nicknames are highlighted prominently in Infoboxes between the flag and map in most cities articles, so it's surprising that you have not seen them or chosen to ignore them altogether. When wikipedia community designed the templates, they must have decided that nicknames are significant and should be a standard entry for cities.

Some Leads, including Infoboxes:

• Japan (FA): "..and it is often called the Land of the Rising Sun"
• San Francisco (FA): City by the Bay; Fog City; SanFran; Paris of the West
• Los Angeles: "...Nicknamed the City of Angels".
• Mumbai (GA): City of Seven Islands, City of Dreams
• Auckland: City of Sails
• Saudi Arabia: sometimes called "the Land of the Two Holy Mosques"

A small sample. There are hundreds, perhaps a few thousand place articles to check. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted. You are comparing Apples to Oranges. Do comparison to country articles which are FA. The rising sun in Japan exists because it is part of the Kanji which makes up the name. Is "Garden city" part of Singapore's name? Stuff like this doesn't belong in the lead. Also, I noticed that it was added boldly by you, so you are the one who needs to demonstrate consensus to retain the stuff. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Lion City" relates to the origin of Singapore's name, similar to "Land of the Rising Sun". Wrigleygum (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the other editors are not here yet I will just add this: There is no Wikipedia policies to support your contention that we need to depend on FA articles for including/excluding nicknames. City Infoboxes with the Nickname parameter clearly encourages editors to insert notable nicknames. What WP guideline are you relying on please? Shiok (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policies to support your contention that we need to depend on FA articles for including/excluding nicknames Well maybe you should a read and explore a bit more to see that you are wrong. We do stuff by policies, guidelines and precedence. You haven't been here long enough or even contributed enough to know it. So when experienced editors are telling you, learn to accept it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wrigleygum: You are the one who added that initially. You need to demonstrate consensus for adding it. Go ahead and demonstrate it. Launch an RFC or show your support here. Do not edit war. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I wil continue other comments tomorrow. It's late Wrigleygum (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, so you didn't have a supporting argument, but you still reverted? Not sure what point you wanted to prove, but stuff like this is exactly what gets editors blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite silly. Everyone who add contents usually post them directly unless it is protected or concerns WP policy, guides and similar. Consensus usually comes later when there is a dispute Shiok (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Please familiarise yourself with the concepts of bold edits, reverts and the need for consensus on disputes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Added:

• Wellington: Windy Wellington, Welly, the Harbour City.
• Chicago: "..Chicago has many nicknames, the best-known being the Windy City".

- Wrigleygum (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and those are countries? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Singapore is a City-state - both a City and Country. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Show me other city states which have it. We just don't put random epithets in the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to be difficult of course. Please find a third party opinion. Wrigleygum (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

How about you drop the stick and actually get some experience editing Wikipedia first? I can mentor you if you want. You realise that in the RFC above almost everyone except your buddy SPAs supported that fact that it was undue? And mind you, these are editors much more experience that you. Try listening to some of us, we have been here for a while and we know how stuff works. If you just won't listen, then I will have to seek a PBAN for you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's simple - Are you concern about finding a a third party opinion? Wrigleygum (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You know what? The RFC attracted multiple editors and none agreed with you. That should give you a clue that your understanding of guidelines and policies is waaaaay off. But we don't do RFCs for every single stuff. It is considered stonewalling changes and is disruptive. I am asking you to drop the stick and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you concern about finding a a third party opinion on this thread? A simple request, compared to ANIs, RFCs etc. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I won't go for a third opinion. The problem here is your general lack of competence along with an WP:IDHT attitude. That needs to be addressed first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hardly, sources and RS at that are the main things. If you avoid the suggestion, you're concern it will be against you. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already shown you how stuff works here. In the RFC, you and your SPA buddies got no support. I have no hesitation in starting another RFC if I want. But you know, that wastes a lot of community time. And when the issue here is that you are the one who is wrong, the quickest way is to deal with you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do my best because I believe in Trust being the critical, unless you know a better metric that helps a nation suceed. (I'm not in politics). As I said earlier, so be it if the RFC goes against. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually not everyone, looking at it, some like the topic -sans the stats in the lead. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Article tag

@Lemongirl942:, 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#When_to_remove? --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#When_to_remove 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

@SashiRolls: 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)

@Wrigleygum: 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)

Modern state and entities in infobox

Tiger7253, the infobox is supposed to summarise the modern state continuously associated with the current sovereign entity. As such, the classical entities are not mentioned. This is consistent with all country articles, see Australia and India for examples. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Education Attainments - Explanation for removal unclear

@Lemongirl942:, 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 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.
• Singaporean students were ranked first in the 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, and have been ranked in the top three every year since 1995.
• 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))

References

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)

@Chipmunkdavis: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#Education 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)

@Chipmunkdavis:, 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)

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". [8] 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)

@Richi: 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)

References

@Wrigleygum: 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 richi 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)

@SashiRolls: thanks for digging that up! I feel we're getting somewhere ... richi (hello)

@Richi: 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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

@Lemongirl942: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. </ref>" ---Shiok (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

References

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)

• @Chipmunkdavis: 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)

• @Shiok: 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#Through_discussion ... richi (hello) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Richi:, 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"—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)
• @Wrigleygum:, 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.

References

- Wrigleygum (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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. Wrigleygum, 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)