Talk:Singapore/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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

---

Meritocracy

Hi! Meritocracy article says Singapore claims meritocracy rather than democracy as its political system. Please clarify the inconvenience.--MathFacts (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, what are you driving at? Are you taking this discussion page as a forum to ask questions or are you here to improve on Wikipedi's article pages? It's a fair question and I demand that you answer this. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 00:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  I am pointing to inconvinience. Being not familiar with Singapore I am just asking somebody to clarify.--MathFacts (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Meritocracy and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Democracy means that elections are held for political control. Meritocracy means that people are judged on their merits and not on the basis of race or creed. -- Alarics (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Meritocracy means people are not elected but examined instead.--MathFacts (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Read Meritocracy#Singapore. This policy is in contrast to Malaysia, where Malays have special privileges. In Singapore, meritocracy means it does not matter what is your race, etc. This does not stop Singapore holding elections. As I said before, the two things are not mutually exclusive. -- Alarics (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave, Mathfacts just want to clarify the mistake as the article "Meritocracy" claims that Singapore has a meritocracy political system while this article displays it as democracy. You don't have to get so worked up and start scolding. He is not familar with this article. I'll apologise for my next sentence, but i truly hate people who shout and scold others since they are rich and/or elite. Just a real-life experience. LordThrall (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurasians

mostly Chinese, Eurasians, and Indians, practice Christianity - who are the Eurasians? Is it a special ethic group? Please clarify.--MathFacts (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Although the reference to the Singapore 2000 census seems to be a dead link now, the Advance Data Release at http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/c2000adr-religion.pdf mentions nothing about Eurasians. The only ethnic groups mentioned in that document are Chinese, Malays, and Indians. "Eurasians" (I presume it means "people of European ancestry living in Asia") are probably a tiny and statistically irrelevant part of the population, not worth even mentioning in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"a tiny and statistically irrelevant part of the population", don't think so. I don't know what the definition is exactly, but the term is definitely used for a particular minority in Singapore. For instance it is always mentioned that David Saul Marshall (Prime Minister in the 1950s) was a Eurasian. -- Alarics (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Correction, David Marshall was a Chief Minister, not Prime Minister. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 08:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For all of you people who are not familiar with the history of Singapore, please read Eurasians in Singapore, thanks. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nevertheless, if the cited source doesn't mention Eurasians, neither should the article. The only source about the 2000 census I found doesn't mention them. I don't know what the original census said; all the links appear to be dead. I find it interesting that the Singapore government has stopped making this information available. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Year 2000 census data is still available on the Singapore Government website. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2000adr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the map - LocationSingapore2.png (In the infobox)

Can i suggest to change the map in the country infobox. Since Singapore is rather small as shown in the map, it's pretty hard to highlight the location and it looks inaccurate IMO.

Instead, i think we could place a dot, highlighting the location of Singapore on a Southeast Asian map and a zoomed-in map with the map of Singapore itself. Please pardon my broken english. LordThrall (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit unclear. An alternative would be to place an arrow pointing at the dot. -- Alarics (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Language

Notes about Mandarin. Added "(Chinese)" to Mandarin to make it clearer

Remove the "by some portion" and edit the sentence "it is spoken as a common language by some portion of Singapore's Chinese community", as this gives a misleading impression that Mandarin is spoken only by small number of Chinese in Singapore. In actual fact, Mandarin is by far more widely spoken than any other Chinese languages in Singapore and has replaced Hokkien as the lingua franca of the Chinese community in Singapore. (Yhjow (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

• It might be a bit too late to say this but please stop adding "spreaded" (you did it three times~!) as the past tense of "spread" into the article and it doesn't hurt to check/look up a dictionary for help if you are ever in doubt. Could save you a lot of embarrassment too, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

city states

London has a city state within the City of London. Washington DC, is a city state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.117.98 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see City-state. Neither of those are independent, sovereign countries, so they are not city states in the way it is being used in this article. TastyCakes (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• And while we are at it, why don't we include those ancient Greek city-states? So typical of these pesky IPs~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Culture

Hi, I really don't think a picture of the Chopin statue in Botanic Gardens is a good choice to represent Singapore Culture. It's by a Polish artist and was a recent gift from the Polish Embassy. . If a sculpture is the best choice, then it should be an Ng Eng Teng, or Tan Teng Kee. KatongKid (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the revert

Wyy was my editing reverted though I gave proper citations.What does the following comment mean "Arun AKA Akash, this is your first and only warning, do not use a sock to do this ever again, or else your next stop will be ANI" (Arun1paladin (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

If me and one more WIKI user post the same things then does it mean that me and that user are same?.May I know who is this DAVE?.I don't use Wiki regularly.I have no idea.I think that anyone is free to edit wiki until they give links (Arun1paladin (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

• It is as what it says, do not resort to sockpuppetry to reintroduce the same factual error that Akash did previously. We would appreciate that you leave it as it is, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tamil and Sanskrit are 2 language is in India from two different families.There are some words taken from Tamil to Sanskrit to Tamil And some words taken from Tamil to Sanskrit.Puram is a Pure Tamil word.Singapore and Malaysia were invaded by Chozhan Emperors who spoke Tamil.What makes you conclude that what I edited was error or bug or virus.You are dictating things here.May I know who are you?(Arun1paladin (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

• Arun, do you live here or are you staying in India? Just answer me this simple question here, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I live in India.What do you mean by here?(Arun1paladin (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Why don't you atleast allow to put the two versions.I have seen a single article containing different etymologies.Why do you want only your view here?.Moreover I don't find any linksor citations for the etymology that you say (Arun1paladin (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Dave,are you a moderator here?Do you know Tamil or Sanskrit? (Arun1paladin (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

• Arun, I don't think you are qualified to add your undue weight here if you don't even live here in Singapore in the first place. What makes you so sure that Tamil text was involved here, if I may ask? By the way, we have a sizable Tamil minority living here in Singapore and they too understand that the Sanskrit text is what we're looking at here, instead of your cited Tamil text. Plus, your entry was the same as Akash - reintroducing the same factual error which we would rather not have, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I request you go to the Malaysia article and read about the Invasion of Malay peninsula by Chozhan who were an Imperial dyansty from Tamil Nadu who were the only people to do oversea conquests from what is INDIAN UNION today.I live in India.But did I ever say that I am not a Citizen of Singapore or I don't have Permanent Residentship in Singapore? Wiki is not some Singapore government website.It's for HUMANS and not JUST SINGAPOREANS from the CITY STATE of SINGAPORE(Arun1paladin (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Arun, I don't think you are qualified to add your undue weight here if you don't even live here in Singapore in the first place. \\ Who are you decide whether I am qualified or not?Are you the owner of wiki or some sort of moderators found in ORKUT COMMUNITIES?.Do you know Tamil or Sansrit ?Just answer.I am sure that you will not know sanskirt because it was never a spoken language even in India.It was the language used by Brahmins for DOCUMENTATION and Religious works(Arun1paladin (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

• Arun, please read below:

1. Read Srivijaya;
2. Your knowledge that Sanskrit was used for religious work has already spoken for itself, read Srivijaya again;
3. IMO, for this article it wouldn't have been too big a deal if you had followed the same format of "Sanskrit/Tamil text" from the article page of Malaysia;
4. The fact that you are re-introducing something that another editor - Akash had added a while back lends the suspicion that you are one and the same, hence my earlier brash tone. If you are not, then my apologies to you;
5. Lastly, I would appreciate very much that if you could actually cite how our country's name of Singapore (or Singapura, in Bahasa Melayu) was evolved from and not what you've provided, which is nothing more than just a tranliteration of the Tamil text itself and has nothing actually to do with what I've mentioned. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave read this

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rajendra_Chola_I Read about his oversea conquests and his trade relations with Sri Vijaya Dynasty.Chozhans influenced the South East Asia with Saivam [their religion],Tamil,architecture and Sanskrit.Saivam and Sanskrit came to the South East from Tamil Nadu where Sanskrit had no official status but religious status (Arun1paladin (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)\

At first Sanskrit has NO word called Puram in it instead it has 'pur' [not pore] http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=SE (117.193.193.209 (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Apologies for butting in here, but I would tend to side with Dave. I've done a fair bit of research on Singapore, and absolutely all sources indicate that the name Singapore derives from Sanskrit. And I don't just mean etymonline, but also books (e.g. Turnbull 1996). The website you give does indeed have सिंह siMha 'lion' and पुर pura 'city', so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. I agree I don't know whether the Tamil or the Sanskrit word was the original one, although given Sanskrit's spread and importance, the latter would seem more likely. JREL (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• JREL, thanks for the clarification but clearly someone from India (which might include Arun1 and Akash) seems to like to push their view of fringe theory that cannot be verified. I suggest we just revert their nonsense, then ignore them and be back on our merry way, cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Singapore day length

"The length of the day is nearly constant year round due to the country's position near the equator.[citation needed]"

Why is there even a citation needed for this ??

Bukhrin (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine of Singapore

I take exception to Cenwin88lee's comment, "you are most probably not singaporean.". There is no place for these type of comments on Wikipedia. The Singapore article mentioned "British fish and chips". If you are Singaporean, you will note that there is not a single outlet in Singapore where British fish and chips can be bought. If you can find one, please re-add it with a reliable source. In the mean time, I agree that "fish and chips" should remain, as I agree with you that this dish is widely available. The inclusion of Marmite is unsourced and has been removed. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• @Qwerta369: FYI, I have to agree with Cenwin that the British Marmite is something quite common here in Singapore (although the stocks we get here are mostly from NZ) due to the legacy of British colonial rule and I'm really not sure as to how to provide a reliable source to state an easily available off-the-shelf commercial product. Don't take it personally but I find that last statement of yours a bit harsh and uncalled for. Anyway, will a photo of me holding a bottle of Marmite at a local supermarket help? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you feel Marmite is a notable part of Singaporean cuisine? I do not agree. Please do not re-add this until a consensus is reached or a reliable source is provided. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

qwerta, please do not take offence. every singaporean knows that most if not all hawker centres and school canteens has a stall selling fish and chips. if you do not live in singapore, it will definitely be hard for you to know the everyday food eaten. there are 4 stalls selling fish and chips within a 10mins radius from where i live. and this is the probably the same throughout singapore. it is definitely a famous and everyday singaporean food.

the fish n chips in singapore is obviously not 100% the same as in britain but is probably 80% similar. there are quite a few versions of fish and chips in singapore. hence, i have removed the "british" and "america" tags to all the food as they are definitely locally adapted. for the fish n chips in singapore, there is no vinegar unless you are dining at a specialised fish and chips shop; and they include a side order of rice with it sometimes.

the indian prata, wantan noodles and basically every food in singapore are locally adapted and different from the original ones in india and china but most people generally call them indian prata and chinese wonton anyway.

i included fish and chips + marmite in the cuisine section to show the diversity of everday singaporean food - indian, chinese, malay, british, american etc.

i agree marmite is less famous these days. you have a case for marmite, it is not an everyday food for most people though most singapore born singaporeans grew up eating marmite with porridge.

it is definitely quite hard and impossible to provide an academic reference for each everday food that singaporeans eat. will you accept a picture of dave and a bottle of marmite as a suitable reference? ha ha.

but feel free to remove marmite it if you so desire.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've nuked the pictures of fish & chips and chicken fried steak, as neither picture represents the varieties available in Singapore. While I'll buy that fish & chips is pretty common, calling chicken fried steak (especially by that name) a representative Singaporean dish is pushing it -- surely eg. "chicken chop" (鸡扒) is more popular? Jpatokal (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The term is "chicken cutlet" not "chicken chop". The picture of chicken fried steak was orginally named as "Chicken Fried Steak, commonly known as Chicken Cutlet in Singapore". But someone removed the "commonly known as Chicken Cutlet in Singapore" part. And later, you removed the picture entirely.

I contend that both pictures do provide reasonable representations of the varieties eaten in Singapore. The sauces may be different but the main dishes are more or less the same.

For the reasons above, I am reverting your edit.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Chicken chop site:.sg" gets three times more hits than "chicken cutlet site:.sg" on Google, the fish and chip picture has an obviously non-Singaporean English coastal view in the background, and the "country fried steak" picture is paired with mashed potatoes and something that looks like stewed kidney beans. These are not representative of either dish in Singapore! Jpatokal (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Go to any hawker centre in Singapore and you will find "chicken chop". It is never called "chicken cutlet". The picture and caption "Chicken Fried Steak called "Chicken Cutlet" in Singapore" should be removed. The picture bearing the caption "Fish and chips, a Singaporean favourite" should also be removed, as it does not represent the fish and chips available in Singapore (using manufactured frozen chips). The said picture represents British style fish and chips, which is totally different to what is available in Singapore. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I just want to clarify this for the uninformed. Chicken chop and chicken cutlet are two different dishes in Singapore. Most food outlets sell both of them. So Qwerta you are wrong on this. The difference between the two is one is deep fried in an oil cooker with crumbs on it aka chicken cutlet, the other is pan fried with no crumbs on it aka chicken chop.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Chicken Fried Steak" is always called "Chicken Cutlet" not "Chicken Chop" in Singapore. Both of you are just showing your ignorance here. You know so little about Singapore and yet somehow, you think you know what you are talking about. It is a waste of time replying to you two. You are just being deliberately pedantic. The picture of the satay is obviously the Malaysian/Indonesian version, look at the sauce used and the absence of rice dumplings. It does not accurately reflect the Singaporean variety accurately as well. The Chicken rice also does not reflect the Singaporean variety accurately. I am removing them all then. Cenwin88lee (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to tell that to KFC's advertising department: [1] [2] Plenty of others too: [3] [4] ("cutlet chop!")

The main mistake you're making, though, is entirely different: an American "chicken fried steak" as shown in your picture is a piece of steak (that is, beef) that's been fried "like chicken". Singaporean chicken chop/cutlet, on the other hand, is just chicken. Jpatokal (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And oh, I switched the chicken rice and satay pics to ones taken in Singapore (by little old me, as it happens). Majulah Singapura! Jpatokal (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your link is linked to a Malaysian, not Singaporean, blog. You might want to check your map, they are two very different countries.

Secondly, just because a fast food outlet called their chicken dish as "chicken chop" in 2006, it does not mean that it is widely known as "chicken chop" in Singapore. You are quoting the exception rather than the norm. "Chicken chop" is not deep fried with crumbs, "chicken cutlet" is.

Thirdly, I concede that in the US they use beef in Singapore they use chicken, therefore you have a strong case for Chicken fried steak. But fish and chips? I don't think so.

Lastly, I am quite surprised you have even been to Singapore. Hah.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of this line

This section under "Languages" is factually inaccurate, especially the line in bold.

"Mandarin's use has spread largely as a result of government-sponsored public campaigns and efforts to support its adoption and use over other Chinese languages.[82] It is generally spoken as a common language amongst Singapore's Chinese community. Most Singapore Chinese are, however, descended from immigrants who came from the southern regions of China where other languages were spoken, such as Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Hakka and Hainanese."

Mandarin is not GENERALLY spoken as a COMMON LANGUAGE amongst Singapore's Chinese community. Many Singaporean Chinese speak English to each other as a common language. Sure there are Singaporean Chinese who speak Mandarin to each other but saying that "Mandarin is generally spoken as a common language amongst Singapore's Chinese community" is just wrong. Both English and Chinese are spoken as a common language amongst Singapore's Chinese community, and English seems to be used more often as a common language as seem by these broadsheet newspaper reports below.

According to the Ministry of Education (MOE), 60 per cent of last year's Primary 1 pupils speak English at home. At Nanyang Primary School, for instance, about 80 per cent of Primary 1 pupils this year come from predominantly English-speaking families. (http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20100315-204631.html)

"six in 10 Primary 1 Chinese students speaking English at home" (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_471530.html)

If anything it seems like English is the common language amongst Singaporean Chinese in 2010. Both English and Chinese are common languages amongst the Singaporean Chinese but English is more commonly used.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenwin88lee, the article is well supported by sources. Please don't continue to revert this and other articles against established community consensus. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Geesh, this section has zero references. How you managed to claim that it is "well supported by sources" is beyond comprehension. Cenwin88lee (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

revert of alaric's line

I have changed Alaric's line:

Although Singapore's laws are inherited from English and British Indian laws, and include many elements of English common law, some aspects of Singapore's laws differ from its predecessors. Trial by jury has been abolished, and the use of corporal punishment (caning) for serious crimes has increased greatly since independence: from 602 cases in 1987 to 6.404 in 2007.

into this:

Although Singapore's laws are inherited from English and British Indian laws, and include many elements of English common law, some aspects of Singapore's laws differ from its predecessors. Trial by jury has been abolished, and there is use of corporal punishment (caning) for serious crimes.

The reason is this. Singapore declared independence in 1958,1965. Therefore, the figures from 1987 and 2007 were both post independent Singapore. There was no figure from pre independent Singapore, so the statement that "corporal punishment for serious crimes has increased greatly since independence" has no references.

Also, his statement that "corporal punishment for serious crimes has increased greatly since independence: from 602 cases in 1987 to 6.404 in 2007" is very misleading and inaccurate.

The increase is probably due to better law enforcement, increase in population (population almost doubled from 1987-2007), and increase in crime.

Most importantly, in the USA/Korea or any country's wiki, they don't mention how many people died by lethal injections or by hanging each year. Neither do they mention that there has been an increase in lethal injections from xxx cases to xxx cases since independence. This peice of information is totally irrelevant.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The figures were quoted simply to show that the use of caning has gone up a lot in recent decades, since you questioned that statement. It is not said in any judgemental way, it is simply a neutral statement of fact, which bears out that the PAP government has greatly expanded the number of crimes for which caning may be given. Under the British regime it was confined to offences of personal violence, amounting to a handful per year in the 1950s. Now it is given for immigration offences, drug offences and many other things not involving personal violence. I am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is a big change and it seems to me a point significant enough to be worth making. As regards your counter-example, I would have thought a WP article covering the judicial arrangements in the USA would be lacking if it did not say something about the incidence of capital punishment there. I cannot see why you think this is any more "irrelevant" than any other statement of objective fact. Alarics (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant and misleading and there are no references at all. That information is better placed in "human rights in singapore". I have said what I needed to say above and they still stand.

Look under the UK wiki, under govt and politics. Does it mention the capital punishment figures during the 1970s or the fact that hundreds of thousands of British children were forcefully kidnapped from their parents and sent abroad by the British government?

Look at the USA wiki etc etc, under govt and politics. Does it mention the number of people who died via electric chair or the number of shootings each year?

Nope. They are irrelevant and would be better placed under human rights wikis.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no pressing need to refer to caning here. It was not I who first included mention of corporal punishment in the article. Clearly it was put there in order to suggest an example of what is meant by "Although Singapore's laws are inherited from English and British Indian laws, and include many elements of English common law, some aspects of Singapore's laws differ from its predecessors." If you leave that bald sentence to stand alone, it strongly invites the question "oh really, in what way?" The abolition of juries is one example. If you don't want to mention caning, let us just leave that one example. As the wording currently stands, it suggests (incorrectly) that corporal punishment was not used at all before independence. Alarics (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the Amnesty reference and the mention of death penalty and caning, as both are notable. By some measures, Singapore ranks #1 in the world in executions per capita, and I believe it's also the only arguably first-world country that still uses corporal punishment. Jpatokal (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. See discussion below.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing by Cenwin88lee

Cenwin88lee, it has not escaped my notice that you wish to change all articles on Wikipedia to present your idealised version of Singapore where there are no problems, everybody is happy and everybody speaks English. You may not continue to remove sourced statements just because you disagree with them. Rather, please discuss them first. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Qwerta369 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Node ue, it has not escaped my notice that you have been blatantly lying about things for quite a while now. You wrote in a discussion above that the particular text was well referenced when it had totally no references. Now you are up to your old tricks again.

Please assume good faith in Wikipedia and stop making personal attacks. I have alerted a moderator over this.

I don't see a need to reply to your allegations in detail because they are all blatantly untrue. I have never deliberately removed sourced statements (not those that are accurately and properly sourced in the correct context).

I have noticed that writers here write about Singapore in a blatantly inaccurate manner that shows an appalling lack of real knowledge about Singapore. There are no references or the references used are taken out of context. Node even admitted that the only thing he knows about Singlish is from a book he read. Ridiculous.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenwin88lee, please take note that I am not alone in my assessment of your actions. I tried to assume good faith on your part, but you consistently proved that this was not the case by aggressively attacking me, as you have continued to do with this latest post, despite my continued pleas for civility. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, please see the talk page of the "moderator" you complained to. I responded to your attacks there weeks ago. He recently posted this response: "TBH, I would rather the lot of you go talk it out at the article page than to carry on with such petty argument on another person's discussion page when he goes on vacation. And now that I'm back, I trust that you lot would have cool down somewhat and be back on each merry way(s)? Over and out~!" --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion

FWIW, I would suggest that you two gentlemen go each separate ways... Cen goes ← , while Node goes → , and then there would be peace. FYI, there's so many articles here on Wikipedia (over 3 million to be exact!) to improve on and you guys had to pick one to fight over? Personally, I have other fish to fry. And note that if both of you are not willing to discuss per WP:DR, please feel free to take it else where like WP:DRR to duke it out instead of whining about it here (and you can quote me on that!) or accusing the other of whitewashing(s) since the both of you had not stick to the golden rule of 1.) WP:AGF, 2.) WP:NPA and strangely enough, 3.) WP:BEANS as well. Remember the saying, two wrongs does not equate to one right. That is all, over and out~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dave, this is my first interaction with you but I am dismayed that you don't seem to be assuming good faith on my part or Cenwin88lee's part, considering we have all just met. It seems you don't want to get involved here, so I'm not sure you've read any of the pages, but I have flat-out ignored many insults and personal attacks rather than go down to that level and have also tried my best to cite policy pages and assume that Cenwin88lee simply was unaware of some of the finer points of Wikiquette, rather than intentionally vandalizing pages. Perhaps I am not innocent, but I do not appreciate the extremely negative light in which you have painted me while simultaneously claiming you wish to not get involved.

Short version: I did assume good faith, but Cenwin88lee continued to hurl insults and ignore my pleas for him to stop deleting well-sourced material, removing fact tags and deleting entire articles, which I assumed, in the spirit of WP:AGF, was simply due to inexperience rather than malice. Assuming good faith despite accumulating evidence to the contrary is one thing, pretending to think someone is acting in good faith once they've proven otherwise countless times over the course of several weeks is simply naïveté. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• I gather that it should be clear to you by now that I'm not taking the side of anyone here, but I would like to point out to the both of you on – 1.) Wikipedia:Assume no clue , 2.) Wikipedia:Assume clue and 3.) Wikipedia:Don't assume. Note also that I'm not really qualified to counsel the two of you, but I sincerely hope that you two can take a moment to reflect on yourself what I've mentioned above. That said, the choice is entirely yours to make if you do not wish to improve on the other 3 million over articles that needs more attention than this one (Please read up on point number 12 of WP:OWB!). Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 21:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave,

Let me tell you a story. A mentally disturbed man has been writing messages on my page on an almost daily basis like a lunatic. Whenever I write something on any wiki, I can be sure this man and his friend/s will turn to oppose it a few days later just to stir up some shit. They have been stalking me from wiki to wiki for months now.

While I feel that this behaviour is downright pathetic, I do somewhat enjoy the attention given to me. I have a few pictures of myself that I can send to them for them hang up on their walls. I am sure they are reading this because they have been fervently following each of my post. They just have to drop me a message with their emails and I will be glad to dispatch my pictures to them.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly Cen, you are no saint either... and I'd suggest that you go read up on 1.) Wikipedia:Conflict paradox and 2.) Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before tagging your talk page with a Wikipedia:Civility passage to further enhance your competency here (Please read up on point number 21 of WP:OWB!). I am done talking to the both of you. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of this line

I have deleted this line below:

Criminal activity is punished with heavy penalties including heavy fines, corporal punishment (caning) and long prison terms. The government argues that Singapore has the sovereign right to determine its own judicial system and impose what it sees as an appropriate punishment, including capital punishment (hanging) for first-degree murder and drug trafficking.

Not all criminal activities in Singapore are punished with heavy penalties, corporal punishments and long prison terms. This line is untrue, hence the deletion. In fact, many offences carry less punishment in Singapore compared to America etc. This is just not true.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a reliable source for the text you have deleted. I have reverted your edit. Please do not remove sourced information. Qwerta369 (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made the text restored by Qwerta into a new paragraph because it seems to me a separate point from the point about the laws having been inherited from Britain but then substantially departed from the British tradition since independence. The abolition of trial by jury is a good example. Merely having corporal and capital punishment are not examples of that, because Britain used to have those things too. However, the great extent to which they are now used by Singapore does make it somewhat distinctive among first-world countries (one can make a similar point about the USA in respect of capital punishment, which most other civilised countries, e.g. the whole of Europe, have abolished). This may or may not be worth mentioning here.

In the original text, corporal punishment was mentioned for a different reason: as an example of the departure from British tradition, because in Britain it was used almost only for personal violence (mostly "robbery with violence"), whereas post-independence Singapore has extended its use to various other crimes, such as vandalism and drugs, and also vastly increased the numerical incidence of its use. However, Cenwin88lee objected to this being included here. I don't feel that strongly that it has to be mentioned in this part of the article, but some mention of it surely belongs somewhere because the figures (whether you approve of it or not is a separate issue) are pretty remarkable. Alarics (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again buddy, read the reference yourself and see how it is totally irrelevant to the words you that are written. You don't just write something you like and quote some irrelevant references and claim it is properly sourced.

Many high income countries still carry out capital punishment. Japan, Korea, USA, Qatar etc. Every country has its own culture and own ideals so stop living in your bubble and judging others based on it.

The line "Criminal activity is punished with heavy penalties including heavy fines, corporal punishment and long prison terms. " is plain wrong.

Also, this phrase itself is a personal opinion not a fact and shouldn't be written in any encyclopedia. Heavy fines and penalties by whose standard?

The penalties in Singapore are generally much much lighter than its neighbours of Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Thailand, etc. Do you see the words "Criminal activity is punished with heavy penalties including heavy fines, corporal punishment and long prison terms." in these countries' wikis under the govt section?

The penalties in Singapore are also generally much ligther than Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt etc. The penalties in SIngapore are probably generally ligther than a good 50% of countries around the world.

The punishment for crimes in Singapore is generally heavier than in Western Europe because they are very lenient on crime there. Which probably explains the high rate of crimes such as drug use and housebreaking etc.

The punishment for many crimes in Singapore are much lighter than in the USA while other crimes are punished more heavily in Singapore. Jaywalking in California gets you a 130 USD fine. Jaywalking in Singapore gets you a 20-5o SGD fine.

Stop living in your bubble and start living in the real world

Cenwin88lee (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"The line "Criminal activity is punished with heavy penalties including heavy fines, corporal punishment and long prison terms." is plain wrong." -- says Cenwin88lee but he is mistaken. Nearly 7,000 canings a year for a population of 5 million; as for the death penalty, Amnesty International has said (http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=14C1E722FEE4F90E80256DFE0068898C&lang=e) that Singapore has "possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population". Then for lesser offences, "Singapore is a fine city" as the joke T-shirt puts it, listing fines for not flushing the toilet, etc. Some people think these are positive factors for Singapore and others disapprove; that's not the point, it is simply a statement of fact. Of course Saudi Arabia is more oppressive than Singapore -- Saudi Arabia is a hellhole in the desert, an absolute monarchy run by ruthless dictators on mediaeval theocratic lines, whereas Singapore is a first-world ultra-modern state with a very high profile and all the appurtenances of democracy. That's what makes its justice system so distinctive -- not necessarily good or bad, just highly unusual. Then again, we know that some US states use the death penalty, but there are only handfuls of cases, all I think for murder, not for drug trafficking. To state these matters of fact is not to make any moral judgment about them one way or the other.

I agree that Malaysia is similar as regards corporal and capital punishment, and there is no reason why that fact shouldn't be mentioned on the Malaysia page, if it isn't already. Alarics (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just rewritten the sentences contested here, with specifics of what offenses merit what and rock-solid references to the US State Department and Amnesty. Isn't it remarkable how it's often easier to just improve the article instead of edit-warring over it...? Jpatokal (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gd edit

Reliability, Accuracy and Neutrality of 2 sources used.

This is with regards to the neutrality, accuracy and reliability of documents quoted here:

1.http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1017.html#crime

2. http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=14C1E722FEE4F90E80256DFE0068898C&lang=e

---

Having live abroad for quite some time, I know 99% of people(state agencies included), especially the media, outside South East Asia are normally rather ignorant about Singapore. Your "rock solid references from the US state department" travel warnings is just one example (http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1017.html#crime).

I quote the following lines from the US gov travel warnings:

1.Visitors should be aware of Singapore's strict laws and penalties for a variety of actions that might not be illegal or might be considered minor offenses in the United States. These include jaywalking, littering and spitting.

The truth is:

Caught jaywalking in Singapore = typically ~50 sgd fine.

Caught jaywalking in California = typically ~130 USD fine. (http://blogdowntown.com/2006/01/2115-lawyers-set-to-fight-jaywalking-tickets)

---

Caught littering in UK: £538 fine. (http://menmedia.co.uk/news/s/1005/1005106_538_fine_for_teen_who_dropped_litter.html) £80 fine for dropping a cigarette butt (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553284/80-fine-for-dropping-a-cigarette-butt.html)

Caught littering in some parts of USA: maximum penalty of 12 months in jail and/or a fine up to $2,500.(http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/nvswcd/newsletter/buttlitter.htm)

Caught littering in Singapore: 200 sgd composition fine. Corrective work orders are normally for those repeat offenders.

---

2.Singapore has a mandatory caning sentence for vandalism offenses.

Not true. Not all vandalism offences attract mandatory caning in Singapore, only some vandalism cases that fulfil certain criterias do. Look at the vandalism act here (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=Reved-341&date=latest&method=part) and search for some of the punishments handed out by the courts yourself.

3. Commercial disputes that may be handled as civil suits in the United States can escalate to criminal cases in Singapore and may result in heavy fines and prison sentences.

Generally not true.

Rock solid is often hard boiled when it comes to overseas sources about Singapore. Personally I am against the use of caning and death sentences for certain offences but the overseas media tend to hype everything up and a great deal of it is just untrue.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have read Amnesty's report and it is far from being entirely accurate. Your own references have shown that.

Amnesty report here: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=14C1E722FEE4F90E80256DFE0068898C&lang=e Sg govt response here with lots of debunking of inaccuracies: http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74

They do try to make a mountain out of a molehill with the capital punishment cases when in reality, only 400-500 have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, averaging out to 20 a year. This is understandable since they are a human rights watchdog and their job is to nitpick on human rights issues.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenwin88lee, they are not making a mountain out of a molehill. The number alone is not what they are commenting on, they are commenting on the rate per capita. Yes, several countries have executed ten times as many (if not more) people in that period, but many of those countries have hundreds of millions of inhabitants. Singapore has the highest per-capita rate of capital punishment. See this UN report: [5] (or will you now claim that since the UN is not a SG government institution, they're misinformed as well?) --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

1. The "highest per capita" figure that you and Alarics keep using is from the 1994-1999 period. Sad to say, we are in 2010 now. The rate has definitely fallen. In 2003, there were only 10 criminals who were hung. That figure is outdated by over a decade so it definitely should not be used. Can you quote any reliable figures from this century?

10 were hung in 2003... and 15 were hung in 1997... and 7 in 1993... relevant, how? This was only 10 years ago, not that long ago. Source is still valid. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

2. Do you have a breakdown on the executions? How many were local residents? How many were foreigners? Given that Singapore is a transit point for many foreigners, do those executions involve a lot of foreigners?

The number is valid and well-sourced. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

3. It is making a mountain out of a molehill. Hanging 20-30 criminals a year is insignificant in the grand scheme of things even if you are a rabid human rights fanatic. Millions die in China, Africa, India, Iraq, Afghanistan annually. Many times this number of people are victims of gun crimes and prison rape/violence in America.

This is your opinion. Information about America belongs on that page, not this one. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Do you agree that human rights issues should be taken to the proper topical page aka "human rights in Singapore"? Especially since we are trying to keep the article below 80k. Please cooperate.

No, I don't, because you are trying to move all information about Singapore that you find unflattering into a corner. The non-English speakers (yes, some do exist), tough-on-crime, etc., you continue to attempt to change this article and others to agree with the face of Singapore that you want the rest of the world to see. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

5. Why did you write totally POV statements such as "Singapore has extremely strict laws" (which is a POV). And untrue statements that have already been clarified above such as "Vandalism has mandatory caning", "mandatory death penalty for many narcotics offences" etc. What were you thinking?

What I was thinking is that you continue to remove sourced information. You are correct that "extremely strict laws" is POV and does not belong in the article, I will fix that. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I await your responses to the points above. Let us know whether you have been to Singapore and for how long as well. If you lack knowledge about Singapore, could I suggest you work on other wikis that you know better? Not everyone has the time to hold your hand and correct every appalling mistakes you write. You are becoming a nuisance with all these shoddy writings rather than contributing to Wikipedia. People have to take time to correct all the misinformation you spread. Take note, this applies not just to you, but to others as well.

Please no personal attacks. Also, I don't appreciate your condescension, I've been around this site for awhile (understatement) and have some idea of how things work. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenwin88lee (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Node, I am thoroughly disappointed with you. I replied in a civil manner but you have descended to maliciously slinging mud at every thing once again. You need a thicker skin.

A civil manner? "...all these shody writings..." that is a personal attack and not remotely civil. And you're disappointed with me? I didn't realise you were my father... --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Using statistics from more than a decade ago (1994-1999) and only a sampling size of 5 years to back up a statement such as "Singapore has (note present tense) one of the highest execution rate per capita" is plain wrong. It is not factual and encyclopedic.

Contrary to your malicious mud slinging, I never did assert that all Singaporeans speak English. Why would I want to do that when I am not ignorant about Singapore? I have written extensively on Singapore Mandarin. But in all, I would hazard that the literacy levels in Singapore are perhaps are slightly higher than in California, where 23% cannot even read and write at a basic level.

Cenwin88lee, I don't care about California or America or any of that, this discussion page is about Singapore. I'm a bit confused as to why you continue to bring up other countries when they have little relevance here. You do in fact continue to try to maximise the importance of English and minimise the appearance of non-English speakers. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote about the use of death penalty and caning in the first place. All I ask is that you write accurate factual stuff and write it in the proper topical wiki because we are trying to keep this article under 80k for easy loading.

Cenwin88lee, again, you are trying to push me into a corner and present yourself as part of a group of "legitimate" editors to this article while presenting me as an outsider. I have been at Wikipedia for quite some time now, this is an egalitarian environment and I am no more an outsider than you. Thank you. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't descend into petty malicious mud slinging. It does not look good for you. Cenwin88lee (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making comments against my character. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the paragraph, but now just saying there is caning for various offences including vandalism, without mentioning "mandatory". (US State Dept and the Singapedia both state *mandatory* caning for vandalism, but it's true the statute says that this doesn't apply in certain cases, so the point is a bit moot.) I've taken out other non-essential bits and added a bit of wider context about how international opinion is divided on Singapore's approach to crime. Alarics (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Cenwin88lee, I don't think anyone is being "malicious", let us all try to calm down. And by the way I can't speak for anyone else but yes I have visited Singapore. Alarics (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just the typical load of ignorant misinformation from the overseas media. Sadly that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Plenty of vandals in Singapore don't get caned. It all depends on whether the ink used is indelible, what it is used on, whether one has any previous record and the weighing of mitigating factors as well which the AGC has the discretion to amend charges.

Vandals who spray paint cars in Singapore attract caning because cars in Singapore costs more than houses in countries like America. A typical car in Singapore costs 80k SGD, you can almost buy 2 landed houses in some parts of America with that money. Like I said, every country and culture is different and there is a reason behind everything. Don't see the world through your own lenses.

Just read the Singaporean court judgements and statutes before you write something ridiculously stupid like "mandatory caning for drug addicts" (when simple drug use normally attract a 6-12mths term in drug rehab centres w/o caning) or "mandatory caning for violence" (when plenty of offences like simple assault and even causing grievous hurt don't attract in caning).

In conclusion, I don't have an issue with what is written as long as it is accurate, factual and paints the complete picture, not just a one sided distortion based on the rhetoric of some overseas human rights group etc.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenwin88lee, whether you have an "issue" with it or not is not relevant. It's also irrelevant if it is true or not, what matters is verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. This is very important. If a statement is well-referenced, it is not acceptable to simply remove it because you disagree or doubt its veracity. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Node, you seem to struggle with understanding very simple concepts.

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The sources used are not reliable and not neutral.

And once again, the statistics used for "highest per capita executions" is outdated by 10 years and should not be used (See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). Despite your ridiculous claim that it is "well sourced", it is definitely not "well sourced". Even an idiot can tell you that. The line claims "Singapore HAS (ie in 2010) the highest per capita executions in the world" while the source itself mentions that this only applied in 1994-1999.

Let me try to an analogy and make it easier for you to understand this.

Do you write a line saying "10,000 people die each year from famine in Singapore" based a a source that states "10,000 died each year from famine in Singapore during WW2 in 1943-1945"? No you don't. It is not accurate.

Do you write a line saying "The Earth is flat" based on the book of a renowned writer who claims the "Earth is flat"? No you don't. It is not neutral. And there are a million other more accurate sources proving otherwise.

Bottom line is, you have some sources from a human rights group and and a travel warning page, both of which can hardly be called neutral and have been shown to contain mistakes.

I have ten times the number of sources that you have from the Singapore media, government and the statutes of Singapore itself (straight from the horse's mouth and who know what they are talking about) that run contrary to some of the things in your sources. They have shown that your sources used are 1. outdated 2. inaccurate 3. not neutral. And hence according to wiki policies, should not be used.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenwin88lee, please do not continue to revert against consensus. Thanks for your cooperation. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Amnesty's estimate, as far as I can see this is pretty much factual: it may be an estimate, but a) the Singapore government refuses to release better figures, and b) in their rebuttal, they did not contest the number of people executed. Opinions from random people like Ed Koch are not really relevant, and it's highly inaccurate to label them as the opinion of the "USA" as a whole.

Again, the job of this article is not to justify things, it's simply to state them. Does Singapore execute a lot of people, and has it been criticized for this? Yes and yes. Would the reader like to know more? They can go read Capital punishment in Singapore. Jpatokal (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenwin88lee: I encourage you to take your complaints about the sources used to WP:RSN to gain consensus. As far as I can tell, they are reliable sources, and it is Wikipedia's job to report what reliable sources report. If you have other reliable sources that carry more weight, propose them. All I have seen so far is information you gained from your personal experience. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Less advert-like writing for this article

This article contains so many peacock terms that it seems unbelievable. Sounds like it is written as a brochure for the country. Can't Wikipedia do better? 116.14.18.139 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you see peacock terms, take them out. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I did it before, but they crept back with a vengeance. Seems like a lot of Singaporeans like to advertise themselves as "best", "most" etc without realizing it reduces credibility for the whole entry. Anyway it's pretty embarassing for writing of this standard to exist for Wikipedia country articles. 116.14.18.139 (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of those peacock terms are actually sourced. It isn't a problem to use a peacock term that is attributed to a reliable source. For example, the sentence "A Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey in September 2008 reported that Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia" is perfectly fine, because the article reports what the source says. It's more of a problem if Wikipedia states the opinion of a source as a fact, or if a peacock term is used unsourced. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are sourced, but do you need to squeeze so many "bestest", "most" in the lead? Encyclopedic writing is encyclopedic writing, brochure-like writing loses credibility. Obsession with statistics? Look at this: "fourth leading financial centre,....most open, competitive and innovative....sixth-highest percentage of foreigners....second most densely populated in the world....most globalised country in the world....one of the richest states....third highest in East Asia....top five busiest ports....world's top logistics hub.....best quality of life in Asia and eleventh overall in the world....best Asian city....fourth wealthiest country in the world in GDP....world's ninth largest foreign reserves....the most technologically advanced and well-equipped in the region." If this is not like a peacock strutting its feathers, I don't know what is. Don't we all want some form of credibility in an encyclopedia? 116.14.18.139 (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To add, almost all these pertain to merely the economic aspects of the country. There's no doubt that economically, the country is accomplished. But is there nothing else to say about this country other than the fact it is rich? If not, it's pretty sad. 116.14.18.139 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you see something that isn't reliably sourced, take it out. It is appropriate for differentiating features to be described in the lead. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As a citizen of the country described in this article, I do find this article to be rather 'promotional'. There is too much focus on the economical aspects in the introductory segment, and it does smack of self-aggrandisement. I will be editing the introductory segment, you can compare the edit. Thanks! AngChenrui (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to refer to the articles Australia, Bangladesh and Japan for quality articles on countries. They are all featured articles. There is a certain structure in its introductory section. AngChenrui (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC on User:Cenwin88lee's conduct

Hello,

An RfC has been initiated to discuss Cenwin88lee's recent conduct. I invite all interested editors to come give their input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cenwin88lee. Thanks! --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of endemic Singaporean money-laundering, Indonesian Freezing Defence ties?

Hello,

I argue for an inclusion of the following serious diplomatic failure of Lee Kwan Yew and Singapore's largest and most powerful neighbour regarding Defence and well-substantiated allegations of Singapore used as a money-laundering financial capital.

I also argue Singapore be ranked as a marginal military power below Indonesia, noting General Benny Meordiono stated (1989): "Singapore? Kopassus can over-run Singapore in three hours". [[6]] ranks Indonesia as world number 14 military power. Singapore is not listed within the top 40 global military powers. To pretend it is a military power of anything other than marginal deterrence is a deliberate distortion of evidence based opinion.

I quote:

Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono accused Singapore on Thursday of not signing an extradition pact with Indonesia out of fear it would be obliged to return money stashed away by corrupt fugitives who fled to the city state during the 1998-2001 financial crisis. The Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA), also negotiated along with the extradition agreement, seems to have collapsed as well. "They [agreements] are frozen,” he told The Jakarta Post.

“Singapore doesn’t want this extradition arrangement because it would have to return money from corrupt individuals who ran from Indonesia, along with the hot money it gets from other countries,” he said. Juwono said there were 80 Indonesian fugitives living in Singapore.

He said when he met with Singapore’s senior minister Lee Kuan Yew in Jakarta last year, the city state’s founder stated that, "It did not make any sense to return the money".

[[7]] [[8]] [[9]]

regarding Obama administration targeting Singapore as a tax-haven for evasion of US taxes: [[10]]

The relevant bill [[11]] pdf [[12]] where "suspect" jurisdictions where "skulduggery" is already well-known lists Singapore:

Anguilla - Antigua and Barbuda - Aruba - Bahamas - Barbados - Belize - Bermuda - British Virgin Islands - Cayman Islands - Cook Islands - Costa Rica - Cyprus - Dominica - Gibraltar - Grenada - Guernsey/Sark/Alderney - Hong Kong - Isle of Man - Jersey - Latvia - Lichtenstein - Luxembourg - Malta - Nauru - Netherlands - Antilles - Panama - Samoa - St. Kitts and Nevis - St. Lucia - St. Vincent and the Grenadines - Singapore - Switzerland - Turks and Caicos - Vanuatu

Joe Stalwell, Asian Godfathers: Money and Power in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia

Renato de Guzman, Head of PRivate Bnking of SIngaporean firm OCBC:

Rich individuals from Europe and the Middle East are moving money from Switzerland to Asia, says Renato de Guzman, head of private banking at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. "It's a favorable trend," Guzman says. "Having a Singapore bank with no ties to Switzerland is an attractive proposition for a lot of them." (And the bank secrecy law is just as good).

h-t-t-p://baumanblog.sovereignsociety.com/singapore_1/ (this link is marked as spam by wikipedia)

Singapore identified as tax-haven:[[13]] Investment Asia: Obama's inauguration to eye tax crackdown on HK and Singapore [[14]]

With both Hong Kong and Singapore featuring on the initial list of 34 “Offshore Secrecy Jurisdictions,” Obama’s inauguration could mark the beginning of increased restrictions for US persons utilising these offshore financial centres, according to Kurt Rademacher, Partner at Withers, Hong Kong. “If Obama, as President, pushes similar legislation through, the next step would be to determine whether Hong Kong and Singapore should be considered official ‘tax havens’,” said Mr. Rademacher. “If designated as “tax havens,” a number of restrictions would be imposed on US persons using these jurisdictions as offshore financial centres.”

Reuters, 27 April 2009[[15]]:

Singapore's government has previously denied suggestions that the country is a tax haven. It has strict bank secrecy laws and has been promoting itself as a rival financial centre to Hong Kong to attract banks such as UBS (UBSN.VX), Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX) and Citigroup (C.N) to manage money for rich local and foreign clients.

Yale Global Online: In Singapore, A Local Switzerland for Asia's Wealthy by Wayne Arnold of The International Herald Tribune :11 January 2008 [[16]]

Now Singapore, is trying to carve out a new niche for itself in the global economy by beefing up banking secrecy laws and offering generous tax incentives. Almost 40 private banks now have regional operations here, including Swiss stalwarts like Bank Julius Baer. Citigroup's headquarters for all private banking outside the United States is now in Singapore, as is the global banking headquarters of Standard Chartered Bank of Britain.

"I can't think of any other place where private banking is growing so much as in Singapore," said Henrik Mikkelsen, a private banker at Commerzbank in Singapore. "We want to be the Switzerland of Asia."

Tax Justice Blog: [[17]] has extensive notes on Singapore as a tax evasion haven.

USA International Business Publications, World Business Information Catalog: Singapore Business Law Handbook. USA International Business Publications, 2007.9781433044540: 301 pages, page 18 states: Singapore is a: "Transit point for Golden Triangle heroin going to North America, Western Europe; and the Third World- also a money-laundering centre".

Joe Studwell Asian Godfathers: Money and Power in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia Atlantic Monthly Press: 2007. ISBN 9780871139689. 328 pages (page 35):

Michael Chambers head of Credit Lyonais Securities Asia estimated- based on information from bank sources some $USD 200 billion of Indsonesian capital was sitting in Singaporean banks

Some money in city state banks is legitimate expatriate capital and some is ill-gotten gains: Hong Kong and Singapore show little interest in separating the two. Morgan Stalney's Chief Economist for Asia region, Andy Xie, in an email (for which he later resigned) wrote: "people at the meeting [foreigners meeting Lee Hsien Loong] were competing with each other to praise Singapore as the success story of globalization... Actually Singapore's success came mostly from being the money laundering centre for corrupt Indonesian businessmen.. To sustain its economy Singapore is building casinos to attract corruption money from China."

Given the high calibre of the references- including the current US government- surely this should be included- if not to make Singapore's carefully calculated image as squeaky clean but reform it to actually resemble the reality of Singapore's finance-biased economy as "Switzerland of Asia" actually funded via illegal transnational money-laundering and a now well-documented tax-haven for white-collar criminals.

I would be most interested if Singaporeans would find this information enlightening. I hope we can collaborate for the inclusion of such information.Peeweebee (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The style and tone of edit, protracted ad homoninen debates, as well as the banned history of this editor, is suspiciously similar to a blocked user we knew previously (See archives here). Please conduct further checks to confirm whether this user (editing since 16:27, 26 February 2010) or his related proxies, is back to disrupt the Wikipedia community once again. -- Kulikah (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussing a major change to an article on the talk page first is the best way to start, and this editor has done so. If you're accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet, the burden is on you to report it in the proper place, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just like I did previously whether here or elsewhere, I'll inform the community first on the relevant talkpages if I detect such similar activities. Usually the admins or other like-minded patrollers will take the follow-up action before I do next. It would be most helpful to check out the related past talkpage archives, as well as the final outcome faced by such disruptive editors mentioned previously. -- Kulikah (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• @Kulikah: I have noticed that yesterday but decided against responding to such trollish remarks until some other editors here come to the same conclusion as I had. FYI, this is not Starstylers (talk · contribs)' first attempt at this kind of undue comments passing off as a question here and it most certainly won't be his last either. BTW, if you've rechecked his edit contribution history, you would have noticed that this is his usual MO, you can change the suit but you cannot change the man. For sure, his pattern of WP:CPUSH is well know amongst Indonesian and Australian Wikipedian related articles so I won't be surprised that you will find more of Peeweebee (talk · contribs)'s COI issues over there as well. It's like playing "link-the-dots" all over again for us, his wiki-tragedy will end soon, I'm afraid. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• @Amatulic: No need for Kulikah to do that, per WP:QUACK I'm getting the blocking admin to take a look. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes Dave, I'm well aware of his past, as well as his recent exploits in Wikipedia and elsewhere too. I've also noticed you adding him to your watch list yesterday as well. Thanks! -- Kulikah (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Obvious sock of stridently racist and anti-Chinese editor, User:Starstylers. --Merbabu (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.227.62.139, 4 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under "Economy" section there is this phrase "The business-friendly economy in the world[61][62] sees hundreds of thousands of foreign expatriates working in multi-national corporations."

This sentence is incorrect. Presumably it should read "The most business-friendly economy in the world[61][62] sees hundreds of thousands of foreign expatriates working in multi-national corporations."

98.227.62.139 (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, but I also added "Rated as the most business-friendly..." because we should attribute claims to sources rather than state them as facts. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms missing

Who deleted the coat of arms? Qwerta369 (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They were deleted from the Commons because they are apparently non-free. Fry1989 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it's back now. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bonny Hicks

Bonny Hicks, written 99% by me, is up for Good Article Review. If anyone has time, please offer your perspective. Newenehpets (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

surviving sovereign city-states?

Monaco and the Vatican I would not call city-states as they are not democracies or republics in that sense. And under your criterion Lichtenstein would also qualify, as well as, probably, some others, so I think the best thing to do is to remove that part of the sentence entirely and just say it is larger than those.

And how exactly does being a democracy or not play in to whether or not Monaco is a Citys-State? (nevermind the fact that Monaco IS infact a democracy, with an elected legislature. Just cause the Prince hasd many powers, that doesn't mean the Legislature is a rubber stamp for a dictatorship)

Fry1989 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox map

I've changed the map in the infobox to File:Location Singapore ASEAN.svg, which shows the location of Singapore in ASEAN and in the world. This is done in consistency with the infobox maps in articles on the other ASEAN countries. The map that shows Singapore as an island can go into the Geography section. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 05:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we find a more detailed map to include with the infobox map? The infobox map, while useful to place Singapore in the ASEAN context, is not very useful as a map of Singapore. Santamoly (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Although articles of other small countries didn't place a map of their country itself, i beg to differ. I think it's a worth to place a map of Singapore, including Pedra Branca, e.g. File:Singapore_location_map.svg. Anyway. Can we change the skyline picture? I think the current one looks ugly IMO, and we should place the view from Marina Bay instead. 219.75.35.236 (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please amend

The country is the second most densely populated in the world after Monaco.

The country is the third most densely populated in the world after Monaco and Macau (China).

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjcrabbe (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Macau is not a country. Jpatokal (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ditto, Macau is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, Macau was never a country. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 10:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Singapore-area contributors? 2010 Youth Summer Olympics

Hello: If you are in the Singapore area, I am hoping to get some people accredited as reporters, for the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. Visit Wikinews' project area to submit your name, and be considered for our official bid. -- Zanimum (留言) 2010年3月22日 (一) 14:55 (UTC)

Removal of Mandarin is a lingua franca amongst Chinese Singaporeans

Reasons are given right above. Saying that Mandarin is a lingua franca amongst Chinese Singaporeans is totally inaccurate. It paints a picture of all Singaporean Chinese using Mandarin to speak to each other when in reality both English and Mandarin are widely used amongst Singaporean Chinese. In fact, English is used more commonly amongst the Chinese than Mandarin is. See below.

According to the Ministry of Education (MOE), 60 per cent of last year's Primary 1 pupils speak English at home. At Nanyang Primary School, for instance, about 80 per cent of Primary 1 pupils this year come from predominantly English-speaking families. (http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20100315-204631.html)

"six in 10 Primary 1 Chinese students speaking English at home" (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_471530.html)

It is a 50/50 thing. Both English and Chinese are spoken as a common language amongst Singapore's Chinese community and to say any one language is the sole lingua franca is just wrong.

Separation vs Expulsion

@Fry1989, Per Wikipedia policy (WP:No original research): "you cannot advance a position not advanced by the sources", and the sources (1 & 2) quoted quite consistently throughout that Tungku Abdul Rahman asked Singapore to leave the Malayan Federation after a lengthy debate/discussion. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 07:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Singapore_in_Malaysia, due to racial riots, the Prime Minister of Malaysia recommended to the Parliament to expel Singapore from the Federation, seeing no other alternative. It's absolutely imperative that this bementioned because this is a historical precedent, never before in modern times, has any country expelled part of itself, rather then "granting" independence to that part, either peacefully or via a civil war. Fry1989 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, even your sources prove I'm right. For example, http://countrystudies.us/singapore/10.htm says "On August 9, with the Singapore delegates not attending, the Malaysian parliament passed a bill favoring separation 126 to 0. That afternoon, in a televised press conference, Lee declared Singapore a sovereign, democratic, and independent state. In tears he told his audience, "For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I have believed in merger and unity of the two territories."" Because Singapore didn't ask for independence (infact they wanted to stay IN the Federation), Malaysia, by voting for Seperation (official term), in reality, "kicked" Singapore out of the Federation. That's a very important distinction. The fact that Singapore was expelled from Federation is very important, and must be mentioned. Fry1989 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• @Fry1989, 1.) Do you know you've been a dick by replying on my talk page when I've first started a discussion here? Knock it off~! 2.) In terms of the choice of words used here, you're reading it differently from me and that's hardly surprising given the fact that we are looking at it from different angle (mine being WP:NPOV); 3.) Per WP:BRD, I would strongly urged you to get a WP:Consensus from the other regular editors here first before reinserting your point of view, do not insert it again until such time (which may and can happen soon but not before that). --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 00:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You can call me names if you like, but the facts are facts. If the Malaysian Government voted to separate from Singapore, without Singapore first asking for independence, they in all essence, kicked them out of the Federation. Fry1989 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, I don't care if you are KICKED DICK or a DICKED KICK (puns not intended), please stick to this page when replying, thank you. Secondly, if you can find the book "Lee's Lieutenants" by Lam Peng Er & Tan Kevin Y.L. (1999, South Wind Production, ISBN 1-86448-639-2), you may find something useful in there that will categorically list out the chronological sequence of event, I'm speaking about Edmund W. Barker specifically. Lastly, I also noted something of a contradiction in one of your edits much earlier but I won't begin to question it. Remember also WP:NPOV. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 01:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

May I intervene and suggest that everyone calms down just a tadge, things seem to be getting rather personal. I suggest that Dave may be in need of a trout.

Secondly, per WP:V and WP:RS, in wikipedia we report on what reliable, preferrably secondary sources say. The sources say Singapore was asked to leave the Malaysian Federation and reluctantly did so. To say they were expelled is to synthesise a position from origional sources, ie violating WP:SYN and WP:OR. Dave is perfectly correct in that respect.

There is of course the option of inviting third party comment, so both of you can step back and avoid personalising a dispute. Remember its only wikipedia, its supposed to be a leisure activity and fun.

Finally, WP:DICK is an essay that is not always helpful to quote. Though sometimes the temptation to do so can be overwhelming. Best not to give into temptation. Regards, one and all. Justin talk 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is by no means SYN or OR to claim that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, there are plenty of reliable sources asserting so (20,000+ on Google Scholar, for one). I think we need to cover both sides of the coin: Singapore's founding myth says that Singapore semi-voluntarily separated, but plenty of people contend that the action was entirely unilateral (=expulsion).

Incidentally, Lee Kuan Yew's opinion appears to be that Singapore was expelled:

Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan YewLK Yew - 1998 - foreignaffairs.org

... Lee bitterly recounts his disappointment over Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's decision to expel Singapore from Malaysia. [18] Jpatokal (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't what the quoted sources said, which was the point I attempted to make. To use the quoted sources was SYN & OR. If you have a reliable source that says differently, then you need to address both POV separately not choose one or the other. Justin talk 16:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Globalisation Index claim is old / misleading / confusing

"A.T. Kearney names Singapore as the most globalised country in the world in its Globalization Index.[17]" That was true in 2005, 2006 but not this year, it is 17th (2010). --78.146.144.58 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is getting from bad to worse

The iterations in 2008 and 2009 were better written (especially the introduction). Successive needless edits have ruined the article. It used to flow; now it reads like someone with Singlish as a first language fucked it up.

Could you provide some specific examples that could be changed? --Glubbdrubb (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

Hello everyone! Under the section "ports and aviation", it is listed that "The government is moving towards privatising Changi airport." Please note that Changi Airport has been privatised for over a year.

Under the section "Domestic", it is said that "Established in 2001, the EZ-Link system allows contactless smartcards to serve as stored value tickets for use in the public transport systems in Singapore." Kindly take note that the EZ Link cards have now been changed to "CEPAS-Compliant Cards", the new generation of contactless transit smartcards for use throughout the Singapore public transport network.

For some reason the article is semi-protected and I can't edit it (it's quite irritating, but I guess it's necessary to prevent abuse), so if anyone has some spare time on his/her hands, do make the abovementioned changes if possible. Thanks a lot, and have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benheng (talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would love to help you out and make the edits, but could you provide the citations for the changes. --Glubbdrubb (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has already updated the Changi Airport privatisation mention. Alarics (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Map

I'm on an iPhone and from my perspective the country of Singapore is quite hard to make out on the map. Normally I like larger-scale maps for country locations, but a third map or slightly smaller-scale map seems called for here. Red Bulls Fan (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon revisiting this it seems a problem on desktop computers also. Red Bulls Fan (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note

Sir Stamford Raffles landed on Singapore on the 28th of January 1819. If there is any doubt of this claim, there is a image of his plaque: [ http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7lVdMls5uOs/RwexCLs88nI/AAAAAAAAAyA/nQw9GEPN9WQ/s400/plaque.jpg ]

Corrected. Brythain (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Geography Section (Climate)

The 'Climate Data for Singapore' shown is extremely outdated. The source was provided by some Hong Kong Observatory Website that reflected the data between 1961-1990. I think it would be much logical to extract data from the 'National Environmental Agency (NEA)', that reflects the current climatological data for Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvml93 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Cite Note 54 has expired, please remove it. KKPP (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not necessary for that as I've tagged it as a properly sourced reference that is now a deadlink. And you need to learn to watch where you sign as I've noted one here and another one in one of the section below, which has been promptly removed as it serves no purpose. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, is it possible to update the table "Climate data for Singapore" based on information on this website: http://app2.nea.gov.sg/weather_statistics.aspx It is more current than the one from Weatherwise (Citation 57). Also, based on the website, the highest temperature is 36C on 26 March 1998. Thanks. Sorry I still do not know how to sign off, I will just insert the tildes. KKPP (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is what you should type (→ ~~~~ ←) to sign your post, other than that no harm done. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Dave, I did type ~~~~ which is how my name appeared. Perhaps I should add --<small> as you have done? I must be missing something. Sorry to add this here, I will remove my messages once this is cleared up. :) KKPP (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• As I am now an autoconfirmed user, I am able to update the factual data myself, thanks for all the help so far Dave. KKPP (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Small is just a formatting method (much like HTML) to make my signature appear smaller, it is entirely optional. That said, you signing ~~~~ is good enough. Learn the ropes of editing on WP first before you try cosmetic changes to your own signature, we're all newbie once. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Information in Infobox

I shortened the line in the infobox in the official languages section from this:
Malay (National language for symbolic reasons. Not spoken by most people)
to this
Malay (National language)
We should keep the information in the infobox short but accurate. Further information can be written in the sections inside the article itself. Yours faithfully, kotakkasut. 05:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Population in infobox

I think it would be better to have the 2010 census moved above the 2009 estimate. The census is not only more reliable but also more recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.51.182 (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.