Talk:Singaporeans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on

Talk:Belizean people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Map

Hello,

I noticed that you have modified the coordonates I used because of "edit distorts position of map". It surprised me because I did it to better position the map.

I realize later it's because of our screen resolutions. Here is mine, if you have any doubt about my good faith.

I suggest someone give this map a normal position, on the right, minimized, because of theses troubles.

Imagine someone on a mobile device ? (e.g. : smartphone) He would see that !

Thanks in advance,

R3sJAP155M (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Singaporeans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 01:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Singaporeans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED
Review is being ended without a result since the new-to-Wikipedia reviewer was in over their head, and nomination is being put back into the nominations pool to await a new reviewer.

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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Singaporeans/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Breakjan (talk · contribs) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article
review progress box
WP:CV
()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4.
free or tagged images
() 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked
are unassessed

Great work on the article!

Comment

This review appears to have been done in a matter of minutes by an enthusiastic, brand-new Wikipedian in their fifth edit—their third was another such quick review. As such, it is not surprising that a number of the criteria were not properly checked, and that the article turns out to need some work before it meets said GA criteria. I have reverted the premature passage and previously pointed out some of the issues to Breakjan on their talk page, which they unfortunately ignored in repassing the article today after passing and unpassing it yesterday.

The issues I pointed out, which are not a complete review by any means, were: it needs a great deal more in terms of in-line source citations before it can meet the verifiability criteria. There are also gaps in the coverage; for example, the Orang Laut are mentioned as the original inhabitants at the time the English made Singapore an open port in 1819, but the second paragraph under Indigenous populations contradicts itself regarding the numbers, and the final sentence is unsourced. There's also a mention of the Dutch with no explanation of why this is relevant.

Under the circumstances, and given that Breakjan passed the article again despite the points mentioned above, it seems clear they are not ready to be reviewing GANs at this time. At this point, the two possibilities are to put this back in with the other nominations awaiting a reviewer, or to try to get a new reviewer via the 2nd opinion status. If no one expresses an opinion in the next seven days, I'll do what seems best at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although seven days have not passed, the suggestion from the
WT:GAN talk page was that I archive this review and put the nomination back in with the other nominations, so I'm going to do that. In addition, when I did a quick copyvio check, it turned up one: the entire final sentence in Language is practically a word-for-word copy from the source. So it seems wise to wait for a new reviewer; in the interim, I strongly suggest that nominator Krazio work on the issues identified here, so the article is better prepared for its next review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Singaporeans/GA2
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kohlrabi Pickle (talk · contribs) 10:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

Good Article Status
- Review Criteria
Further information:
WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the
    list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
    the layout style guideline
    ;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
    audio:
    7. [5]
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) media are
relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear, concise and very comprehensible. Spelling and grammar is correct. ✓ Pass
    (b) (MoS) Manual of style requirements are fulfilled. ✓ Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The references that are used are appropriately listed. However, the number of references used is sparse regardless.
    • The first line "Singaporeans or Singaporean people are people identified with or citizens of the city-state of Singapore" -> This is not supported by the citation given. There is no mention of people identified with Singapore, and the definition is an overly restrictive one. It is also odd to use a biography for a legal definition of a Singaporean citizen. One would simply go to the Constitution of Singapore for that.
    • The second line is contentious and uncited. "Historically" is a loose word with little meaning, but it misleadingly suggests that the ethnic mix referred to is a native one. In fact, it is only a few centuries old, so this is verifiably false.
    • There are more - I'm inviting the editor to comb the article and edit them through.
    		 ✗ Fail
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The sources that are used are all reliable. Mixture of books, reputable news sites, think tanks, and primary sources. ✓ Pass
    (c) (original research) There is some original research here, as indicated in point 1 under (references). ✗ Fail
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Copyright violation tool revealed no irregularities. ✓ Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article suffers greatly from circular reasoning. E.g. "the vast majority of Singaporeans have been Singaporeans..." (Singaporean = Singaporean) For a society that is new and largely immigrant, which was held together by colonial rule until just over 50 years ago, there is far too little discussion about what "Singaporean" means. The definition is largely assumed, and minority groups are fit into it peripherally.

    I think there is insufficient coverage of ethnic influences on contemporary society. There is some connection made to Chinese, Indian and Malay societies, but only cursorily. There is also insufficient attention given to other societal groups, which may have been more or less prominent historically.    		 ✗ Fail
    (b) (focused) There are a couple of lines of loose connection to the article. The line on Racial Harmony Day requires an explanation. For example, it is worthwhile to point out that Singapore has historically had racial tensions (most prominently in the 1960s), and that the current social makeup is partly a result of education, strict laws, and social engineering. This gives greater context to Singapore society. Without this context, the line on Racial Harmony Day is of very limited relevance. ✗ Fail
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    There is certainly no deliberate bias, but there is an apparently unconscious privileging of the official position of what a Singaporean is: a Singapore citizen, following the Singapore government's CMIO model, with anyone else on the periphery. This can be remedied by a more thorough treatment of the "identity" component of the Singaporean, which is highlighted in the first line. This is not a strong bias, so I'm going to pass this section anyway. ✓ Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The article is stable. ✓ Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
    audio
    :
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No copyright issues with images. ✓ Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Images are used appropriately. ✓ Pass

Result

Result Notes
✗ Fail This is a great attempt by the editor to put together an article on Singaporeans. Unfortunately, the article has some basic issues to fix (which the nominator was not available to address) and also needs a more thorough treatment (even in summary form) of Singaporean history, society, identity, citizenship before it can qualify as GA. It would be good for the nominator to consult similar pages on the nationals of other countries.

Discussion

Vedic or Ottoman

is Singapore a Vedic flag or has it come under the influence of the Ottoman Turks?

Singapore itself being somewhat "Jewish and Hindu" blend.

07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\ 43.242.178.4 (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. footnotes
    can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. sound clips
    , are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singaporeans&oldid=1213307718"