Talk:Singapore

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article appears stable. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Article appears to appropriately use sources - there is no obvious evidence of original research. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Appears to be factual and neutral. Any unusual claims, such as "The Singaporean military is arguably the most technologically advanced in Southeast Asia" are backed up by reliable sources - though some, such as this one, using a source from 2010, may need updating. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Images are all appropriately tagged and usable. SilkTork (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Query

• There is an appropriate reference section, but there are a number of Harv errors indicated. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• There are a lot of images creating image clutter, and sometimes squeezing text between images - see MOS:IMAGES for guidelines omn use and placement of images. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SilkTork what's your browser's max width? I want to emulate to see how the clutter looks like to you. robertsky (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky My browser size is 1280 x 657. This MOS:SANDWICHING happens in a number of places, such as Merger with Malaysia, Foreign relations, Military, and Culture. SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork thanks. will check on this again. It will definitely be different from my current 1920 x 1080. robertsky (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• A number of images have long captions, the content of which would be better used in the main body. See WP:CAPTION. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Prose works, but tends to journalese, informality, and could be more concise. There tends, such as the opening sentences, to be an accumulation of detail crudely presented which is not inviting to read, and is therefore counter-productive in conveying the information. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• On a quick look, the major aspects appear to be covered, though more research would need to be done. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have in mind any specific area which requires reasearch? 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

1.02 editor - the research I mean is me doing some background reading on the topic. This is what I do for all GA reviews. It's my standard approach. If you wish to help out on that, that would be useful. I'll look at other encyclopedia entries on SIngapore. Put "Singapore" in to Google and see what comes up, including news items. And sometimes get a book or two out of the library. The amount of research depends on the complexity and importance of the topic. SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• While there is no section that appears obviously excesses, some sections appear to be disproportionately larger than others - such as Water supply and sanitation containing more information than Tourism. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• References to Singapore Statutes need to be checked as the URL structure for AGO's Singapore Statutes Online was changed sometime 2-3 years ago. If possible, make use of {{Singapore legislation}} to ensure that the links stay updated. robertsky (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky Would you be able to do that? SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork yup. working on that, but putting here so that if anyone else wants to edit, they can do it too. robertsky (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any updates? Feinoa (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of this, but the Proposed Decisions have been posted in the Fram ArbCom case, just when my personal life is also somewhat unexpectedly busy, so I'm putting that as the priority at the moment. But I will get back to this as soon as possible. SilkTork (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem! Feinoa (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Putting stability under a query as the article had to be fully protected, and was only unprotected a few days ago. SilkTork (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Cite needed tags have been dealt with, though I had to add a new one. I'll check out sources as I read through the article. SilkTork (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Density and presentation of image media is still a problem. Because of the size of the sections, unless there is a compelling reason for more, I suggest selecting just one image; and, to give a tidy appearance, to place that image on the right side of the article - at the top of the section if possible, otherwise close to the text to which the image refers, unless that means the image is so close to the bottom of the section that it spills over into the next section. I have collapsed the weather box as that is media rich and distracting, yet not everyone requ that information. Collapsing the box is not a GA requirement, so it can be reversed if this is considered inappropriate. SilkTork (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork I have noticed that some articles sidestep the text-squeeze and section-overflow issue by using galleries and montages, like India. And we do have a gallery here to highlighreligious diversity - in some areas and roads on the island, we have all three in close proximity. Shiok (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Galleries can be contentious, and while not explicitly forbidden, are not quite encouragp either: WP:GALLERY. WP:Layout, which is part of the GA criteria, does have MOS:LAYIM which says "you can use a gallery", so that would be a way forward for those sections which would benefit from having several images, but where there is insufficient space. Other than the religious section, where I feel the present gallery works effectively, which sections do you feel would benefit from a gallery? SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would highly discourage the use of any gallery in an overview article as it brings unbalance to section and breaks format as per WP:GALLERY and WP:UNDUE. What in meant by format change....is that in mobile view the images would not be seen till section end....that would be different from all other sections...in desk to view it may cause the whole article to need the use of sidescroll for some people MOS:ACCIM. The norm in country articles is not to have stand-alone galleries.... instead images associated with the text are placed adjacent to the text as per Mos recommendations. Examples to follow are Canada, Australia and Chad. Japan has a few buildings as per a long talk based on the fact a chart would have been meaningless. As for the format at India it is a current change that is being debated with the main concern being mini size images that are not accessible and do not meet the threshold size for visibility for all. Would be hard pressed to fine a gallery in watched over country articles. As for the gallery section here....in my view....religion is not represented well by architecture.--Moxy 🍁 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Religion is the main section I am concern about for a gallery and not thought of others. I am glad you think the present gallery works effectively. The most relevant part of WP:Gallery to me is this: "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images..". Social harmony is important in Singapore, so these images together in a small gallery will reinforce that message. Some readers may not even know how a Buddhist temple and Islamic mosque looks like and these will help. The section text is short and I do not see much difference when it appears at the end of the section on mobiles.

Concerning India's feature article I mentioned, it is due to appear just next week (Oct 2). There is no current debate about its montage image format on their talk page at all. SilkTork, are you more or less finished with the body text? Shiok (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've not yet had a chance to sit down with the revised article, read it thoroughly and compare it with specific and general sources. I hope to do that over the next few days now my schedule is a bit freer on Wikipedia, though I am still a little stretched in real life. Like you I was a little surprised that India is to appear as a featured article considering its poor state - the appearance alerts one to the possibility the article is similarly messy, and it is. The lead fails to appropriately summarise the contents of the article, spending most of its time on history, trying to cram everything else about India in a small paragraph. There is nothing in the lead about agriculture, indeed, very little in the article itself, despite agriculture employing half of India's workforce - there is more about agriculture in an image caption that there in the main body of the article. There is nothing about incense. There is nothing about tourism. There are mistakes early on - the lead sentence of the second paragraph says: "Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago" - though humans had likely been arriving in India from 70,000 years ago or more. The "no later than" phrase is unclear, usually indicating a point in the future rather than one in the past, and "from Africa" is also unclear, and not needed anyway for a sentence in the lead. The overlarge, coloured, and over-captioned images are squeezing text and pushing into following sections. There are too many tertiary sources. There are a number of broken or unused cites. I've only glanced at it, and I don't see it as being of GA standard in its current state, let alone FA. However, that is not my concern. I do not have the time to get involved in that. I wish instead to focus on this GA, and help you folks bring this article to an acceptable standard. The appearance is a quick and easy aspect of that. A tidy, uncluttered and professional appearance is important in both encouraging people to read and reassuring them that the textual content will be similarly well organised and tidy. SilkTork (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That sounds insightful, hopefully they can make some corrections. I had drafted the following response earlier for comments above, but will post it here since you are the reviewer.

I do not see the 20 buildings mentioned, unless we count those with even a hint of one structure in the background. Cities are mainly built-up areas and Singapore island especially is almost all urban with the exception of the surrounding islands, so some images with them are difficult to avoid. The stand-alone buildings are:

* a 3-photo montage of the city skyline - Economy

* Istana - Government

* SAFTI Military Institute - Defense

* Ministry of Communications, in charge of IT, media, arts - Infrastructure

* SMU University - Education

* NUH Hospital - Healthcare

* National Gallery - Arts

* Jewel Changi - Tourism

Of these, the 3-photo skyline montage was already reduced from a 7-photo montage someone posted, if need be could be reduced to just one. A few can possibly be replaced, like NUH hospital, Ministry of Communications, university, but may be hard-pressed to find another representation for those sections.

The religious gallery are buildings course, but many will see them as places of worship and religion, not regular office buildings. I am certainly not ignoring MOS, but it does provide for exceptions and hopefully acceptable here. There is always a chance the recent events may recur, maybe just to hinder the review, so I hope you will not be deterred. Shiok (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your free to ignorer the MOS and other recommendations but most will see an unbalanced ...to our readers the most important aspect of the article will be buildings. Not people or culture but buildings as there are 20 of them in the article...sure we need 3 more in a gallery? .."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article". I dont see how segregation of buildings represents "Social harmony" in fact it shows the opposite. --Moxy 🍁 11:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Tourism section - (copied from talk) it would be good to fix the tourism section first. It reads like an assortment of random facts and describes some specific tourist attractions, instead of tourism in general. Some of the information that could be expected from a tourism section are (1) contribution of tourism to employment/economy, (2) major steps taken to promote tourism (Ministry of Tourism and Merlion) (3) reasons why tourists visit (central location, good air connectivity, duty free shopping) (4) major tourist profile (China, India, ASEAN) and (5) briefly list important tourist attractions.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Fail

• Has a number of citation needed tags, including from November 2016. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Tags have been dealt with. I'll continue working on the review. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• This appears on first glance to be a quick fail due to there being a number of citation needed tags, some dating from November 2016; also the presentation is very untidy with too much media. However, the article is reasonably readable, and appears to be organised and detailed, so there is the possibility that this could be turned into a Good Article with a decent and committed scrub up. I'll continue to make some quick observations. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Currently, the article isn't stable due to edit warring, so quick fail for now. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Every day, two new restaurants open in Singapore." This is sloppy journalistic writing. The data on which this tidbit comes from is seven years old, and is based on an annual figure so giving just the media headline is inaccurate and misleading. Do two restaurants open every day? No, of course not. The source says 686 restaurants opened in 2012, so two a day is just an average. However, the source also says 537 closed, so the total number of new restaurants is 149. That in itself is an impressive figure so it doesn't need to be artificially pumped up. However, as the data is seven years old, it would be more appropriate to get a recent number, and one which looked at an overall trend, not just a single year. SilkTork (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

On hold

I haven't given the article an in-depth review, but I think there is potential here for this article to be made into a Good Article. However, before an in-depth review can be conducted, the obvious problems of the "citation needed" tags, and the image clutter need to be addressed. So I am putting this on hold for seven days for those matters to be dealt with before continuing the review. If the citation and image issues are addressed within seven days I will complete the review to see what else needs doing. SilkTork (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps best to fail and start again once the problems below are delt with. We clearly have some problems that can't be solved without intervention despite what the majority is saying.--Moxy 🍁 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for delay - the Fram case took up a lot of my time and energy. Now it is over I'll take a look again at this article. I recall when I first looked that it appeared to be a quick fail, but that beneath the off-putting appearance there appeared to be a reasonably solid article that could be worked into shape. I am aware that in the month since I put this on hold that the article has had as many edits as it has had in the previous 12 months, and that some edit warring took place. Such instability is also grounds for quick fail, but if we can look into the reason for that, and deal with it then hopefully it won't occur again. SilkTork (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am extending the hold for one month, after which I will look again and make a decision as to if the review can continue, or if there is too much instability. I will look again on or around Nov 5th. Please use the time to build the whole article rather than worrying about the lead. If the main body of the article is fine, the lead will; fall into place. The lead is always the last thing I look at as that is the area that is most likely to change during a review. SilkTork (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, I totally agree that it is important to fix the sections first. I was initially an observer, but I would be happy to actively contribute to this; though I am not sure if the timeline is adequate. Is there a fixed deadline for a GA review?--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the reviewer. I am particularly patient, and am comfortable keeping a review open for months if need be. As long as progress is being made, and folks are still happy for the review to remain open I have no problems at all. This hold is because there is disagreement about the lead. You can work on the article, and safely ignore the lead. As with a number of other experienced GA reviewers, I leave serious consideration of the lead to the end, as the lead will likely change as the article itself develops during a review. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't trust you one bit. And you have avoided visiting the talk page and answering questions I posed to you for days, right at the page bottom.

"Third on Corruptions Perception Index" - these are your own rewrites, a claimed "consensus view" that is only by yourself. I do not see anyone coming in to support your vague deceptive summary. You know of course many readers who are new to the index may interpret it as the third most corrupt country. So your perverted refusal to acknowledge this vagueness in your next response will be reflective of other malicious content edits too. "

I suggest everyone watch all his edits carefully, not only on Singapore article.183.90.37.104 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@183.90.37.104: Please note that Silktork is currently reviewing the article for GA status and in many cases reviewers will be bold and make some changes where they deem necessary. Please also assume good faith in other editors unless they have been proven to be disruptive editors. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussions regarding general editing of the article and debate between editors is best done on the talkpage rather than here in the review. The statement " you have avoided visiting the talk page and answering questions I posed to you for days, right at the page bottom" is inaccurate as DreamLinker responded to every comment made by 183.90.37.104 apart from the last one. The tone of 183.90.37.104's language is hostile and insulting, and is not conducive to a positive collaborative atmosphere. SilkTork (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Copying this here as I want this to be a part of the GA review record:

I don't wish to get involved too much in the editorial decisions in building this article. Reviewers should remain neutral. What I will be looking for in the lead is an overview of Singapore, summarising the main points raised in the article, as per WP:Lead. There shouldn't be a statement in the lead that is not also in the main body (such as " classified as an Alpha+ global city"). There shouldn't be a section in the article that is not summarised in the lead. Working on the lead separately from the main body is not often the best way of doing things. Write the article. Make sure the article is fine, then use the main body of the article to create your lead.

What I will also be looking at is that there is broad coverage in the article - so there should be information on education and healthcare. Perceptions such as quality of life, and personal safety are additional pieces of information not always found in a GA article on settlements, and while they can and should be included if such perceptions are shown to be widely reported such that they are a common feature on discussions about the settlement, they are not required pieces of information. It is known as a major trading centre, so I would expect some mention of that in the main body, along with an explanation of why it is such a world leader, with a summary both of the fact and the reason in the lead. I would expect an indication in the article and so therefore in the lead of the government's control and influence on Singapore's financial development. I will also be looking that the article stays focussed, so a lot of detail or weight on a particular aspect I will question. I would, for example, question a paragraph that sets out to insist on Singapore's "influence" with a string of features, particularly when this assertion of influence is both uncited and not discussed (and it appears not even mentioned) in the main body. I will be looking out for examples of original research where statements are made which are not directly found in sources, but which are arrived at by editors' own interpretation of facts. The facts may be true. But if they are not explicitly stated in sources, then we should not be saying them. Do we have a source for Singapore's "influence on the global economy"? I will be looking at balance to ensure the article is neutral. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't expect to see a series of positive statements, but alert and inquiring readers may get concerned to read long sections of high praise without accompanying balance, such as concerns about falling GDP. Am I missing in the article information about the fall in GDP in Singapore: [1], [2], [3]? Is this information in the article and I'm not seeing it?

My suggestion to folks working to improve the article is to concentrate on getting the main body right first, then work on the lead. It's easier and more effective that way, and tends to be less confrontational as well! SilkTork (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing

I am closing this GAN as not listed. The article remains unstable, and so the review cannot continue. SilkTork (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Skyline Image

Hi all, I am thinking about adding a skyline image to the infobox. If anybody has any objections please do let me know. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why not!--Zurkhardo (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be helpful. SilkTork (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding a skyline image to a countries' infobox seems unprecedented, I don't think I've ever seen it on other countries. That is unless you want to make it a special case due to Singapore's status as a city-state. Feinoa (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, image got reverted. robertsky (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether there is a skyline image in the lead or not is not really going to impact the GA review, and using such an image is down to editorial discussion, but if editors start reverting rather than discussing, and it looks like the article is going to become unstable, then that's a quick fail. If anyone has a serious issue with an edit, then please discuss it first rather than revert. I'm surprised that an edit that had been proposed on the talkpage, got agreement, was actioned, and then supported by a subsequent edit, was reverted without discussion. I wouldn't like to see that happen again.

Now, this is not an issue I'm going to campaign over, but as there seemed an interest in having such an image, and it seems to be a useful and valid thing to have - a quick identifying visual of what the city looks like, I'd be happy to see some discussion here as to if the image should be restored. I would support its inclusion. Here is what the article looked like with the image: [4]. SilkTork (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree. SilkTork do help the city-states in having a picture in their infoboxes. An entry in the appropriate WP places or infobox guides should do it, thanks Shiok (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Introduction needs cleaning up

The intro reads like a tourism or promotional piece. Most of that data would be fine in the body. I made the changes but was overruled for not having discussed them first (which is fair enough I admit).

Thoughts?--Zurkhardo (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I will look closely at the lead as part of the GA review, and I will keep your comments in mind when I do. SilkTork (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems fine with me, in line with articles about other countries. Where else should it be placed then? Feinoa (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead currently summarizes just about everything that is written in the article, which shoudnt be the case. it should only summarize the Important points of the article enough to establish the importance of he article. Most of the information in the lead should be already mentioned in the body of the article. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The information is already in the body. In my opinion, the international rankings in the third paragraph shouldn't be mentioned, along with the social indicators. The last line of the first paragraph also should go, the citation is an opinion piece and it is a repetition of what is already stated in the second paragraph. Other than that, it seems fine to me. R22-3877 (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding on to that, I removed several of the 'hub' claims in the third paragraph, as they don't seem to be as such. R22-3877 (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Rankings are integral to many cities/countries lead, esp global ones like London (which is GA), NYC, Tokyo. The reviewer says it's close to GA so we can wait for his thoughts. Lightsabr (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• As per the majority here...the fluff filled paragraph could easily be fixed and added to the body...but it holds little value for the lead as most links are to generic articles not about Singapore.--Moxy 🍁 00:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I generally do the lead last, after the main body has been sorted out, otherwise the lead may need changing. Easier to do the lead when the article is stable. I often leave this comment: "To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know." SilkTork (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, seems active editors are done with edits last few days. From WP:Lead and comparing other cities, an obvious omission in the lead are tourist attractions and landmarks, do you feel we need some there, and other areas to look at? Lightsabr (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As it appears the quick fail issues have been worked on (the use of images still needs looking into, but I've been pleased at the way several editors have worked collaboratively on this over the past seven days) I'll be starting the review proper either today or tomorrow, and we can all then get to grips with finishing this off and getting it listed. Certainly, if there's nothing on tourism in the lead (I haven't looked yet, just responding directly to your ping), then, yes, it would benefit from a summary of the Tourism section, and I would bring it up as part of the review if there was no tourism summary. SilkTork (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, I spaced the images so the article looks better, captions not excessive after recent trims I guess. Choice of photos can be subjective so haven't removed any but you can do so or edit accordingly. I found non-standard browsers on both android and ios mobile can display images at different sizes, not like the wiki app. Landmarks added as you suggested. Lightsabr (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I second the removal of rankings in the lead. Makes the lead too long. Haven't gotten around to see how to integrate the rankings into the main body though. robertsky (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I also support removing rankings in the lead. I feel that they add a lot of fluff into the article, when the point that they're trying to convey could be expressed in a different way. I'll use one line in the third paragraph as an example:

"The city-state does well in international rankings, including: the most "technology-ready" nation (WEF), most competitive economy (IMD), top International-meetings city (UIA), city with "best investment potential" (BERI), world's smartest city, third least-corrupt country, third-largest foreign exchange market, third-largest financial centre, third-largest oil refining and trading centre, fifth-most innovative country, and the second-busiest container port."

The point that this sentence is trying to get across is that a lot people do business in Singapore, it's well developed and technologically advanced, and it's a center of finance. Per WP:SUMMARY, the lead should contain a quick summary of the article's most important points, and I just don't think that listing the rankings themselves is most important. I get that they're being used in a way to try to illustrate that Singapore is successful in these ways, but I believe they fail to contribute to an effective summary. If so desired, rankings can be elaborated on further down in the article. Horserice (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This one line above tells 12 facts in 20 secs. The stats are specific to the best points of the city. If a reader or interviewer has only 2-3 mins to read your resume (or city profile) you need to tell your best story quickly. It is also direct, not fluff - "3rd largest" vs "one of the largest" oil trading centre - which is preferable? most are even surprise the island is an oil hub. So we defer in opinion there. Some items can go of course but surely not all.

They're not all empirically verifiable facts. As these rankings are presented now, there's a lot of implicit questions about who's measuring what and how the rankings are done. For example, "city with best investment potential" would differ greatly depend on which firm is providing the standing and by what metrics it's measuring against. "Technology-ready city" - what does this mean? That the city is already highly developed in the tech industry? Or that it's not developed and ready for development in that sector? What does a "smart city" mean? A city with a really high average IQ? If you have 2-3 mins to read something and you already have these questions, then this isn't a good summary. If other editors want this type of ranking to stay, they should at least move these down into their own section in the body, but I don't think they belong in the article to begin with.

But that's how Lead summaries are supposed to be! - every summary generally has corresponding entries in the body and lots of links for us to click on for more details. If there are no links, then dive into the body, read the text, check refs and links to sub-articles to find out more. So just for the items you mentioned: clicking on 'technology-ready city' will take you to the article with all the rankings and the refs are on the page if you want to validate the figures further; also in the section below - Infrastructure, Info-Comms, it's stated that the rankings is published in the Global Tech Report by WEF, world economic forum. For 'best investment potential' - in brackets is stated it's origin is by the think-tank BERI; next, 'smartest city' has inline ref to the CNA news article which shows the performance indices for top 20 countries across four metrics. So each question you asked is one click away (mostly) if you want the details.

I'm saying two things here: 1) that a lot of these rankings are garbage. I'm not saying that it's hard to find the cited listing for "smartest city". I'm saying that the ranking itself is BS and doesn't mean anything. It's one organization's opinion for how they would rank the most tech-forward cities by whatever criteria they've made up and the ranking is most likely not grounded in hard, empirical, measurable metrics. 2) that having readers rely on references to explain what you've said in text means that you've failed to write a good summary. Yes, there are links to click on if you want more detail. But, in this specific paragraph, if you were a first-time reader, you'd have to click on the links to figure out any detail about the listed rankings. It's relying on the references to explain things when the text should be sufficiently self-explanatory. The fact that readers would have to click out to something to figure out what these rankings are means that the lead is failing to be a good summary. Horserice (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Well said, the majority of the opinions seems to agree that the , the fluff need to be cut down and paragraph move to elsewhere. There's no wikiped with a lead section like Singapore that mentions Singapore is a global hub for education,[9] finance, healthcare,[10] innovation,[11] manufacturing,[12] technology,[13] tourism,[14] trade, and transport.[15], there hundreds of countries that are a global hub for one or many things, , the Singapore wikipedia page deviates from MOS:INTRO putting economic rankings here deviates from. It amazes that discussion had even lasted for 2 weeks.DerekHistorian (talk) 8:25 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No point in responding to you at all since it is all same same cut-paste and not digesting replies. Anyone who answers this 'historian' will only encourage him to continue.

But I will ask you this: What happened to your investigation below? And since you are 100% sure of your sock allegations, will you commit yourself to retirement, or at least remove yourself permanently from Singapore pages if the results are negative? Lightsabr (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Than why did you respond to me ? You still haven't provided evidence all the claims you made. For example you said 'Rankings are integral to many cities/countries lead, esp global ones like London (which is GA), NYC, Tokyo.' And there are many articles with longer leads too You have failed to provide a example when I asked for it. There is also no wiki lead section article that mentions anywhere as much as your Singapore that includes global hub for this and that, most competitive economy, international ranking. Also I made a mistake, I have no idea I was fooled by the lies edited in the Singapore page. Singapore does not have the highest life expectancy in the world as of 2019 it's Hong Kong.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/life-expectancy-by-country/ but of course you're going to revert my edit so that everyone can keep believing the lies edited in the Singapore wiki page. Also you deliberately did two revision against me when all you need to do is one, you're the first person to do this to me. Are you trying to do that 3 times revert rule something. DerekHistorian (talk) 9:05 15 September 2019 (UTC) For example one the current one in Hong Kong's wikipedia also says the same thing https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/02/health/hong-kong-world-longest-life-expectancy-longevity-intl/index.html

I did so simply to ask you this: What happened to your investigation below? And since you are 100% sure of your sock allegations, will you commit yourself to retirement, or at least remove yourself permanently from Singapore pages if the results are negative? Lightsabr (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking for others to help me do the sockpuppet check, I'm confused how to open a sockpuppet profile. So I asked Moxy, don't know if she will help or not, if not I will just have to keep asking for help. As you even going to remove your controversial ranking of Singapore enjoying the world highest life expentency :http://www.geoba.se/population.php?pc=world&type=15. International ranking shows Hong Kong or Monaco, nowhere for Singapore but I guess you're just going to keep allowing it right ?

Rank Country Years Year (2019)

1. Monaco 89.32 2019 (Est.)

2. Japan 85.77 2019 (Est.)

3. Singapore 85.73 2019 (Est.)

4. Macau 84.6 2019 (Est.)

5. San Marino 83.44 2019 (Est.)

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/life-expectancy-by-country/

Name Total Male Female (2019)

1. Hong Kong 84.762 81.876 87.658

2. Japan 84.55 81.406 87.594

3. Macau 84.168 81.202 87.1

4. Switzerland 83.698 81.764

5. Singapore 83.526 81.412 85.646

DerekHistorian (talk) 9:28 15 September 2019 (UTC)

On the appropriateness of the names, that can be said for the title of every other ranking probably, because many are a consolidated ranking of sub-indices. Sustainable City, Green CIty, Global city, Doing Business, so forth. Many will need to click through to find a description, but that can be a positive. Even the Human development index requires a first-time probe of the underlying metrics and I recall reading criticisms. You may have a point about smart city, which is not IQ but about digital infrastructure and ecosystem to improve citizens lives in 4 areas - mobility, health, safety and productivity. By Juniper and Intel - so it's credible; unless we find reported criticisms or similar rankings, they serve as good benchmarks. Off-topic I dread all the street cameras that's part of it. Organisations that publish them and the press that report them try to make it more accessible to the layman; the original report for Network-Readiness for example is often reported as Tech-readiness, so maybe that's why previous editors use that term. On the plus side, it does encourage the reader to explore. The guideline for MOS Lead says the lead should pique the reader's interest to read on in the body, or links. The goal is not to stop at the lead. If they don't understand some parts and not motivated to find out about those, that's fine. Lightsabr (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

However, you're right in that some of these are good to leave in. 3rd-largest forex market, 2nd-busiest container port, the oil refining stuff, these can be verified by hard numbers, by the volume of forex trading, containers shipped per year, and barrels refined annually. These do provide solid numbers that we can use to construct an overview of the economy. Horserice (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I find it strange that Derek was edit-warring with you, then turns around 180 and have you commenting here as well instead of doing more there. I don't know if it's related to the protest movement that maybe HK editors want to suppress it's government's achievements as much as possible? Personally I think some past version of HK - the city and the article were better. My friends and I like visiting HK, so hope things get better soon. Lightsabr (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Since he's using my name and explanation for why I reverted his edits in the Hong Kong article to justify his actions here, I thought I should at least put my opinions forward in the discussion here so someone else isn't speaking for me. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone twists your words to push their own agenda. As for why I'm not adding more there, I've been editing that article for a pretty long time and tried to get it to FA twice. I've already done a lot and ended up writing a very large part of the article. There's been a lot of contentious editing on it recently, and I'm trying to keep it as neutral as possible and ward off vandals until the unrest dies down so we can start putting in info about recent events when everyone is a lot less heated. Horserice (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

We read about it everyday and understand how difficult it is. If you like, I can help because I know the place well and our cities are very similar. I'd say don't believe too much about the competition thing between our cities, it's better to collaborate. Like recently, there was an editor who tried to insert a picture into both our articles' infoboxes (Monaco and Vatican City as well), which has not happen before as city-states are supposedly not able to use the infobox to have an image/montage. His edit is

here. I am not sure if we can just have a consensus between the four cities or some approval is needed, but we work together towards it. The GA reviewer also show his support on this talk page.. have a read above - "Skyline Image". Let me know. Lightsabr (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no other country-level article that uses skyline images in the infobox. Hong Kong probably should because it's a subnational entity, but not as long as it's using the country infobox to maintain consistent usage with other articles. Horserice (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

But there is no limitation according to this editor. In which case, in our infoboxes, we can have a prominent notice to editors that inclusion of an image is only for city-states. Workable? Lightsabr (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You have done a great job....just need to cut the fluff and move the paragraph down. Should also look at the wording "a sovereign island city-state" as it's confusing and leads to articles expressing different views... over linking at its best.--Moxy 🍁 02:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Singapore is literally a sovereign island city-state. I don't see how it could be worded differently? Feinoa (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

'Island city-state' should suffice, since the soverign nature of Singapore is already implied by the term 'city-state'. Still sound a little awkward though. R22-3877 (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with majority of the opinion here, the fluff need to be cut down and paragraph move DerekHistorian (talk) 8:21 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to re-engage with the review shortly. Possibly in a day or two. I'm just finishing off Central Park. SilkTork (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Singapore#Lead,_way_forward

Lead, way forward

Moved from Talk:Singapore#Introduction_needs_cleaning_up

• So I guess the best way forward would be a rewrite and move of the current International rankings section out of the lead. So let's propose a paragraph here so we can move forward before GA attempt is suspended due to conflict.--Moxy 🍁 15:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Previous section is too long so I split it, if it's fine with everyone. With due respect, I think there is no hurry as the reviewer has stated GA appear to be close. We can wait a bit and have a pause after a few days of chaos. Lightsabr (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, why expand to 'The country is situated..' when a shorter 'It lies..' will do? Personally, I much prefer short sentences. Lightsabr (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

situated is just the normal term used in geography {academic usage).--Moxy 🍁 07:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"It lies one degree north.." is clearly better from a style point of view than the wooden and clunky "The country is situated one degree north...". I don't think academic usage is what we should be imitating. Many academics cannot write good English. They certainly do not generally adhere to the rule we should be following, which is to use a few words as possible. -- Alarics (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Alarics, that helps. Will wait for any response before reverting. Lightsabr (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Could we get one ofree the dual accounts to reply before reverting. We ain't going to get far if people not willing to talk things out. Very discouraging that no progress is being made do the ownership problems.--Moxy 🍁 20:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

--Moxy 🍁 20:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: I think the 3rd paragraph should be split up. Some of the information should go to Singapore#Industry sectors and Singapore#Education. The information is already in separate sections. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 00:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think the lead needs cleaning up as well. It doesn't summarise the contents in proportion. For example, there is almost nothing about Singapore's pre-modern history, while a lot of details about the modern history. The third paragraph is also full of too many details, instead of presenting a summary. Generally, I prefer fixing the article sections first and the lead later. However, if someone wants to fix the lead please go ahead.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Economic stats to be updated from 2014 to 2018

Can someone help to update the economic stats? 2014 is 5 years ago. It will take a long time for me to decipher data from the different sources. robertsky (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: Someone please help to verify the stats. I have updated the table. robertsky (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Robertsky a lot of work you did from 9 sources to update. I did a random check on 3 with only one figure rounded off slightly it looks good Lightsabr (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Great! Yeah, it was tough. I eventually figured which terms that singstats and world bank are using match which terms here, and realised that the dollar value had changed from some 200X year to 2015. My economics teachers should be proud. hahahaha. Thanks for checking through. robertsky (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky, your econ teachers will be happy if you ping them your progress, maybe even help! Lightsabr (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Double standard edits on Hong Kong and Singapore, extremely glorifying of Singapore's unnecessary fluff

I have never seen a wikipedia page with so many unnecessary added fluff meaning when Hong Kong does the same a little it gets. The lead section of the Singapore article is way too long, all the rankings there is add unnecessary fluff. It's almost like it's intentionally glorifying the country Singapore but any other economically advance country can do that too, why it's Singapore here allowed to do this here ?

DerekHistorian (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind this user is following my edits just to revert them, which is against Wikipedia rules. He's also been suspected of being a ban evading sock. Furthermore, I don't see the connection between the articles of Hong Kong and Singapore, so I honestly have no idea where's he going with this. DerekHistorian, I suggest you stop reverting edits trying to undermine Singapore's article for your own personal agenda and risk getting your account blocked, as it clearly seems you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Feinoa (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DerekHistorian, if this is your way of RfC-ing... Sure, but it isn't endearing. For the time being, don't revert each others' changes and trash it out here? For a start, I stand with you on the rankings here. I don't know the history between you and Feinoa, and even if it is mentioned above by Feinoa, my following remarks are of my own, and not coloured by the edits done by either both of you. I too feel that it is unnecessary in the lead section, and too detailed in that section. Whatever they are, they should be in the main body rather. My eyes glaze over the lead section as it is and it does not make reading or editing the article enjoyable. As to why I did not remove it myself, I didn't have the motivation to do so, yet. robertsky (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It all began when I reverted his unsourced and improper edits on another article (which I assume was done in good faith) which another editor also did as well. They seemed to take personal offense as their edit summary was claiming that I was biased towards them. DerekHistorian only started editing on here thereafter. I don't see how that's a coincidence. Feinoa (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, back history aside, I do think the lead section should be trimmed further. The rankings should be reorganised into the body if they are not done so. Then again, I think we can take the conversation back to Talk:Singapore#Introduction needs cleaning up. robertsky (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me many bias wiki editor keep using the sockpuppet account excuse to justify there own bias editing as a way to get around wikipedia's rule. When I claimed Gyatso1 of misinterpreting the text and claimed he was sockpuppet AsadalEditor but instead turned around to accused me of being AsadalEditor but moderator check it was him who's the sockpuppet /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomon_people, than you have Hunan201. who is also removing text from 6-7 years ago, he also accused me of being AsadalEditor ( worldcreaterfighter ) to as a excuse and the result Clerk assistance requested, Insufficient evidence. Closing.-Bbb23 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter. Now you have Feinoa doing the same trick, he removed all my edits in Hong Kong wikipedia, the edits that glorifies Hong Kong even though it's well source, didn't even allow me to glorify that Hong Kong have high international rankings but he himself is okay with adding Singapore with international ranking and every exaggerated fluff. I don't see Germany, Japan or any advance country that does the same thing why is he allowed to? The Singapore led is nothing over-glorifying Singapore as a super advance and superior country.DerekHistorian (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I won't comment on some of the points you have raised as it seems to me that you are forum shopping. I am familiar with the recent sockpuppet investigations with WorldCreaterFighter, and it has been closed. You added a topic in the Hong Kong Talk page with the same points, stick to there. However, you seem to accuse Feinoa being part of a sockfarm, but there's no proof yet. Wikipedia:BADFAITH much? If you have done your research into Singapore article's history, what Feinoa simply did was to retain passages that have mostly being on the page before he gotten involved with edit the article here (within the past year, he started editing here only in July, the text is already there). One can assume that there was a consensus previously, either through the Talk page or by collaboratively adding and updating the article to have the rankings in the lead. Also, the lead here doesn't contain only the good stuff, Democracy Index in also in there. I don't think the lead is all about glorifying the country. robertsky (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian, your edits on the Hong Kong article were improperly sourced, grammatically incorrect and filled with inaccuracies. No one is 'glorifying' anything here, your statements reeks of projection. In addition, I was NOT the only one that reverted your edits. If you take personal offense with your edits being reverted, perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. Feinoa (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

All the of them are well sourced and I can back it up, it's just against wikipedia rules according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horserice who has multiple barnster and wiki award, he also it said Singapore's leading Singapore article is way too long and all the rankings there is add unnecessary fluff. You are only correct about it being grammatically incorrect, but why don't you correct for me or filled the Hong Kong wikipedia page with everything you did the same you did for Singapore, simply because you don't want to. In fact you remove every edit I made that benefits Hong Kong but you don't mind making all the edits that benefits Singapore. My sources is not filled inaccuracies and improperly sources. I dare you to show me a example. You removed that Hong Kong having highest life expectancy even though it's sourced here https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/02/...est-life-expectancy-longevity-intl/index.html Hong Kong being the world's most compeitive economy in 2017-2018 https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/02/...est-life-expectancy-longevity-intl/index.html on the year book is also shows Hong Kong from 2012, 2016, not just 2017,2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Competitiveness_Yearbook DerekHistorian (talk) 19:35 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Quite a stir here..I will just repeat my comments above - 'Rankings are integral to many cities/countries lead, esp global ones like London (which is GA), NYC, Tokyo.' And there are many articles with longer leads too. Lightsabr (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you try showing me a example of many articles with longer leads than Singapore. I wonder Lighsarb, you edits are also 100% similar to Feinoa which is basically everything about Singapore. I suggest a moderator check your accounts because there's no way that two accounts can that similar in it's edits. I'm wondering why removed all the competitiveness yearbook from 1997 to 2017 ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Competitiveness_Yearbook you removed all the years and just added 2019 just to make Singapore on the top of everyone just like Feinoa removing Hong Kong also just to makes Singapore on the top too ? Your account and Feiona reeks so much of trying to make Singapore on the top, the most advance and richest country in the , seems extremely convenient for Singapore if you ask me that your edits are all about Singapore like Feinoa.DerekHistorian (talk) 19:59 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Feinoa, DerekHstorian, and Lightsabr: I have read through the squabble above and 90% of it is sockpuppet accusations. These allegations do not belong on this talk page and i suggest that you raise it to WP:ANI. Please also Assume Good Faith if there is no concrete evidence showing that a user is purposely violating policy. My opinion on the rankings is that only the ones that Singapore is well known for be included in the lead as it fufils the criteria at WP:LEAD of establishing notability of the article and the rest be put into the body of the article. Regarding the glorification of Singapore in the lead, All the stuff in the lead are supported by sources and are relatively neutral (although there are some parts in the body that aren't). Also DerekHistorian please use square brackets [ ] when citing lists here. If you need help please refer to this page. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 15:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This is such a massive waste of time. I'll let DerekHistorian comments speak for itself. Feinoa (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

1.02, I HAD NOT SEEN ONE WIKIPEDIA OF ANY COUNTRY except for Singapore that's also many stuff like Singapore is a global hub for education,[9] finance, healthcare,[10] innovation,[11] manufacturing,[12] technology,[13] tourism,[14] trade, and transport.[15] The city-state does well in international rankings, including: the most "technology-ready" nation (WEF), most competitive economy (IMD),[16][17] top International-meetings city (UIA),[18][19]

When I tried to do the same this is what User_talk:Horserice had written to reply to Singapore's page. It shouldn't. The lead section of the Singapore article is way too long and all the rankings there is add unnecessary fluff. But we're not working on that article so it shouldn't concern us.

Also please be patient with me, I had had been editing wikipedia since 2017 and was never concerned about the talk page and how to replied with signatures until I saw these biased edits forced me to, also that Worldcreaterfighter, Asadal who made hundreds of sockpuppet accounts properly with thousand edits everywhere have made many opportunist to just accuse anyone who doesn't agree with their edits as a sockpuppet, this is what I'm seeing.  ::DerekHistorian (talk) 16:33 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Feinoa: I'm seeking for justice from wikipedia. Tell me where is the fairness? Hong Kong and every country, city is not allowed to edit their data like Singapore on the leading page ? Show me another wikipedia that has as much stuff on the leading Singapore wiki page. Are you telling me you didn't see what Horserice stated on the edit summary , before you removed Hong Kong's ranking he mentioned economic rankings here deviates from MOS:INTRO. and again he said size of economy is substantively elaborated on later in the article and again here omit rankings again per MOS:INTRO

When I wrote this to User_talk:Horserice " Singapore is a global hub for education,[9] finance, healthcare,[10] innovation,[11] manufacturing,[12] technology,[13] tourism,[14] trade, and transport.[15] The city-state does well in international rankings, including: the most "technology-ready" nation (WEF), most competitive economy (IMD),[16][17] top International-meetings city (UIA),[18][19] "

he replied saying " It shouldn't. The lead section of the Singapore article is way too long and all the rankings there is add unnecessary fluff. But we're not working on that article so it shouldn't concern us."

SO KINDLY PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES AND REMOVE MOST FLUFF IN THE LEADING SECTION, If not tell horserice that the same can be edited on Hong Kong. :DerekHistorian (talk) 16:58 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DerekHistorian Look. The perceived double standard you see is a result on consensus building. There is no hard and fast rule when comes to content editing on Wikipedia, other than some basic civility and common sense that need to be spelt out. Yes, MOS Lead may say that it should be short, but there can be different interpretations. Every single point in that paragraph is short and backed by sources, or a summary of the text in the main body, which does not contravene with MOS Lead as well. How each article's current group of editors treating each article can be different from each other. You should understand that point. Your experience of how you had been treated in one article does not always readily translate to another article. Pick your battles, come back another day when you have a stronger hand in building the consensus you need to have this removed. robertsky (talk)

Your obviously a wikipedia editor for Singapore right ? I find it so strange every reply that I'm getting here comes from Singapore wiki editors. Are you going to do anything to remove and shorten Singapore leading page because I'm starting to think that there is some of nationalism on the Singapore's wikipedia page to promote Singapore ? So far I have not seen any other wiki page that adds so much fluff like Singapore even though every advance nation is capable of too but only Singapore has that. Why does it also have to be on the leading section. In the end I see double standard, removing Hong Kong but allowing Singapore :DerekHistorian (talk) 17:25 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If you haven't notice, I had stated that I am against having rankings in the LEAD, but that does not mean that I should remove it outright, especially when there is already a discussion on it (see: Talk:Singapore#Introduction needs cleaning up). As for shortening it, I am still figuring out how to go about doing this. A misplaced cut simply would have the changes reverted. Even then, I would go through the discussion first. Nationalism? Hah! You should see how vocal many Singapore netizens are against many policies that the ruling party had introduced over the years. robertsky (talk)

I'm pretty sure you're the nationalist here, DerekHistorian. You seem pretty defensive about Hong Kong, exaggerating it to be better than Singapore. The rankings are outside Wikipedia and I'm afraid they don't lie. Feinoa (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian, this is exactly what I meant by "we're not working on that article so it shouldn't concern us". What Robertsky said in a recent reply is right; just because one article's editors determine that it should be written and styled in a particular way does not mean that that automatically needs to be applied to other articles of a similar topic. Additionally, this article is having active discussions about the lead and going through a GA review, and you're trying to forcibly enforce an opinion on how it should be written without first engaging the editors of this article. Wikipedia is first and foremost collaborative, and this is not that type of behavior. If you're encountering a lot of pushback on your edits, you should reflect on why you're not convincing other editors instead of forcing your point across. Horserice (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian you posted this topic on the talk page of the Singapore article. Of course the people replying will be those that regularly contribute to the article as they would have it on their watchlist. You have also mentioned that you had not cared about talk pages for the two years that you have been editing for. This amazes me and leads me to question your understanding of gaining consensus. I second what Robertsky has said. There may be a main MOS but many projects have their own MOS which may differ from project to project. This may result in the styles and content of the article being different from each other. Hope that you understand. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 06:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting of tired of this to be honest. So far as of know I do not see anything remove on the Singpore's leading page Also in the Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage it says Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. This had lead to believe there was something biaqs.

I though wikipedia rules and restrictions applies to everyone. It it's against the rule than same should apply to Singapore. Why is the Hong Kong wiki page look so inferior to Singapore even though both have similar rankings, competitive economy, this makes people people feel there's unfairness. Hong Kong even have many rankings higher than Singapore yet Singapore is allow to mention they are a hub for this and that and mention everything else of rankings ect. The Hong Kong lead section is not even 1/4 the size of the Singapore lead page even after I edited the rest it's still removed, they both have the highest competitive ranking, both are ranked alpha city, they are rivals but yet Hong Kong leading section looks completely inferior to Singapore while Singapore looks superior.

For example the part about Hong Kong is classified as an alpha+ world city, indicating its influence throughout the world. This wasn't even edited by me but by User:Bluesatellite who has major recognition, many barnstars, and member of many wikiprojects -----> here was the date of his edit in 24 May 2019 [[5]] and also mentioned in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city but for some reason Hong Kong is not allowed to have that edited but Singapore is allowed to have alpha city mentioned. Also holding the highest Financial Development Index score and consistently ranking as the most competitive and freest economic area in the world wasn't edited be me either. I only restored that edit in 2019 and added 2017, and than later added 2012 and 2016 next to to it. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Competitiveness_Yearbook it was removed by you Horserice according to your claim ; financial rankings inappropriate per MOS:INTRO but yet again this rule apply to Singapore ? By the way all Lightsabr who is Feinoa updated the 2019 but removed the 2016 and 2012 that shows Hong Kong on the top on purpose. YET AGAIN PROVING MY POINT, THAT I WANTS SINGAPORE TO BE ABOVE HONG KONG.

Based on the criticism of Wikipedia I have every reason to believe there is double standard, prejudice, bias. edits. Because if both Hong Kong and Singapore rankings are close with eachother why is Singapore allowed to edit all of that but Hong Kong not ? This is not about me a job for all the wiki editors to balance the edits, follow the rules that applies to all countries wiki pages equally. DerekHistorian (talk) 10:52 14 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian Youre not the only one tired of this. I dont know how many times we have to explain this to you but the lead section has no relation to the actual state of the city. I doubt you even read our comments or the discussion above regarding the lead needing clearing up or the fact that the article is under a GA Review now. I do not wish to further argue over such petty things. We all have better things to do then argue with you. 1.02 editor (T/C) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian, removing content saying Singapore is on top and then adding content saying Hong Kong is on top in the Hong Kong article doesn't make sense. Looking at Feinoa's comment, you appear to be wikihounding them. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 00:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OKAY..... I take it no one is going to do anything. I have been away for more than a week, even after 2 days of locking this page, even after more than a week NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Even if we wait for months and years NO ONE IS GOING TO CHANGE ALL ERRORS, INACCURACIES is quite obvious that there is a extreme double standard, just keep allowing people to see Singapore's wiki page the way it is.

Indeed this is the reason why this " Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels. " Not a million years can justify this bias.

BECAUSE NOT A MILLION YEARS WILL YOU CONVINCE ANYONE THERE'S NO DOUBLE STANDARD to Hong Kong compare to Singapore. The strict rules apply to Hong Kong for some reason does not apply to Singapore even though Hong Kong's edits is not one-tenth of Singapore's wiki page. What are the admins, wiki editors doings to make wikipedia fair ? talking about rules when there's such a extreme double standard. DerekHistorian (talk) 12:32 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No one is denying that there are double standards in Wikipedia. There are, but it is a byproduct of the 'consensus by article' model that Wikipedia has here in absence of hard and fast rules, which are limited in numbers here. Unfortunately, not many are convinced by your arguments here, or at Hong Kong article. Yes, I get it that you are frustrated, but saying that nothing has changed is something which you should take back. There are many discussions held between the rest of us while you are away. Did you even bother to read? Thanks or no thanks to you (depending on how one looks at it), we are up in our necks checking and verifying sources and looking at how primary data is generated, thinking and drafting on how to weave the information from the various sources together. It is a slow and long process (and, I question your sources actually. This after looks at how life expectancy is calculated). The lead may or may not be re-written, but it will be done eventually after the body of the article is updated and/or related articles updated. If you did not notice or bother to look at the edit history, there are changes to the article already. Open your eyes. The change you seek is fast, swift but callous and controversial by the action itself. If you want the changes you seek, your combative tone does not help. Didn't Horserice say there are much they still wants to add and improve on Hong Kong article? Did you even bother to find out what they want to include? Did you bother to include them? robertsky (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Being aggressive and accusatory like this isn't going to convince anyone of your points. As robertsky said, other editors are going through the article and tweaking/rewriting it. This takes time. There's active discussions in the other sections here and you can join them again if you're civil.

robertsky, yeah there's more to add to Hong Kong, but I think it's best to leave that article alone while there's still unrest (so maybe for a long while). It's also fully protected now though, so can't change it even if I wanted to. Horserice (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not being aggressive, I'm discussing this in the most civilized way. I know there is clear double standard. Nothing has changed in the Lead page, every other changes that doesn't involved Singapore's leads page unnecessary fluff means nothing, because nothing has changed in that section. This Singapore wiki page with it's controversial rankings have been ignored since 2018, nobody here even bothered to check it. I only became aware of after edited in Hong Kong wiki page but yet it's not allowed on Hong Kong but is allowed on Singapore and Hong Kong fluff is not even 1/20. Reading all the bias, prejudice, double standard accusations and facts. I came to the conclusion the Singapore wiki page is government sponsored because otherwise why was it allowed to be ignored for such a long time, obviously it's privileged because why the wiki editors in Singapore are allow to edits thousand times better than Hong Kong wiki editors ? Hong Kong lead page compare to Singapore is nothing and a joke in comparison. The rankings here are controversial, is supported only by Singapore individual sources where as other 2018, 2019 rankings don't even place Singapore no.1, You have Lightsabr saying " rankings are integral to many cities/countries lead, esp global ones like London (which is GA), NYC, Tokyo. " but YET HE FAILS TO SHOW A EXAMPLE. The more I see these dicussions the more I see it as a way of stalling time because even if you want to have a discussion why not remove the Singapore lead page or place it somewhere else ? It shouldn't even take more than 3 days to deal with this. No wikipedia from any country and city has a lead page like Singapore and I'm not seeing any changes, it's already almost a month since this issue is raised. It didn't take half a day to remove Hong Kong's but it's taking so long for Singapore. DerekHistorian (talk) 8:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: I can infer from this that you are ignorant of our previous explanations. Repeating the same nonsense and coming up with baseless arguements gets you nowhere. Please read carefully through the previous responses if you want an answer and stop wasting our time. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: You didn't even bother to bring up this issue despite editing the Singapore wikipedia page since a very long time, you Singaporean wikipedia editors don't do nothing about ever since the lead page unnecessary fluff was added since 2018. There's no result and nothing meaningful has changed. What's the point of waiting so long to have the lead removed first? already there's like more than million people who viewed this page when it could be incorrect. I have been to many wikipedia discussion and we all know lead must be changed first and than discussed later. What are we waiting for ? It's been a month and many millions of people have already seen this wiki page when it shouldn't be edited like this. Every day the page gets 20,000 views. You're not doing anything to stop that. The innacuracies have not been sorted out. Just keep letting this wiki page until millions more get deceived by controversial rankings of Singapore from out dated sources.DerekHistorian (talk) 9:59 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: Please read the comments above. Please stop accusing other people. They are getting tired of this. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 00:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Report double sockpuppet accounts Feinoa , Lightsabr are same person. Close timing and similar edits, they can't be coincidence

The evidence is too strong. Look at the Singapore talk page

---> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore&action=history

---> Both User talk:Feinoa and User talk:Lightsabr,

Both User talk:Feinoa and User talk:Lightsabr,

Feinoa timing on 14 September 2019 are both 03:28,[6] 03:25[7], Lightsabr timing both at 03:39[8], 03:42[9] the difference of timing in their editing is way too short.

Also another thing that exposes both Feinoa and Lightsarb, not only do both 90% of their wikipedia edits entirely focuses on Singapore.

---> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Competitiveness_Yearbook&action=history

Both of their wikipedia edits also intentionally removes every data that puts Hong Kong above Singapore in the world competitive year book history.

---> Lightsarb, just putting a 2019 year book and removing all the years from 1997 to 2019, avoiding showing Hong Kong on top [10]

---> Feinoa, does a similar thing by conveniently removing the 2012, 2015, 2016 edits that again avoid showing Hong Kong above Singapore [11]

---> EDIT: I'm now even more 100% sure. More info added on both Feinoa and Lightsarb are also the only ones that reverts edits and defend the lead section of Singapore [12]. Lightsarb reverted the edits of admins/or wiki editors User:Moxy who removed the all unnecessaryfluff in lead section of Singapore [13] and Feinoa also reverted mine [14] who I also removed the leading section of all that unnecessary fluff , both also seems to the only one defending it on this Singapore talk page. There's way too many coincidence fort it not be the same person DerekHistorian (talk) 11:18 14 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, wrong page to report Sockpuppets. Go to WP:SPI instead. robertsky (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian once again, go to WP:SPI if you want to report sock puppet. Are you expecting administrators or bureaucrats (there are no moderators in Wikipedia, FYI) to patrol this page for sock reporting? If so, don't. Unless there are reasons for them to pass by here, they will not be bothered much about this. robertsky (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hilarious. I guess anyone editing articles relating to Singapore must be a 'sockpuppet'! I'm not even going to waste my time on this. Feinoa (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Dont worry it will all be fixed during GA review.--Moxy 🍁 14:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What? That is similar to saying that 2 users vandalising Wikipedia at the same time are the same person. Besides that, it takes around 1 minute to log out and log in again, not 10 minutes. Their edits mostly focus on Singapore because they are from Singapore. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Another misleading inaccuracies edited on Singapore lead. Singapore doesn't have the world life expectancy but yet everyone keeps ignoring it

Unbelievable to me that even after 2 weeks of talk no one even removes anything from Singapore's lead section despite there being inaccuracies involved. If I had not checked properly again I would been fooled by the misleading lies. DOESN'T ANYONE EVEN CHECK ON THE SOURCES ?

On the leading it's misleading edited as Singaporeans enjoy the world's longest life expectancy, NO ONE EVEN BOTHERED CHECK THE INACCURACY. Multiple sources clearly show as of 2019 it's Hong Kong, singapore only number 5 http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/life-expectancy-by-country/ Multiple sources also say Hong Kong This urban population is leading the world in life expectancy For example one the current one in Hong Kong's wikipedia also says the same thing https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/02/health/hong-kong-world-longest-life-expectancy-longevity-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Even from wikipedia they Singapore still only number 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Edit: I just checked, is funny how the only sources that claims Singapore have the world longest life expediency comes from every independent Singaporean source. ONLY SINGAPORE SOURCE CLAIMS IT NOT INTERNATIONAL SOURCE.

And even for Singaporean source the longest is 84.8 years, while for Hong Kong source is 87.32 years.

And hey it doesn't even have to be Hong Kong but yet Singapore is edited highest in the world but HEY KEEP ALLOWING IT TO FOOL EVERYONE.

http://www.geoba.se/population.php?pc=world&type=15

Rank Country Years Year

1. Monaco 89.32 2019 (Est.)

2. Japan 85.77 2019 (Est.)

3. Singapore 85.73 2019 (Est.)

4. Macau 84.6 2019 (Est.)

5. San Marino 83.44 2019 (Est.)

DerekHistorian (talk) 9:15 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Life Expectancy issues

@Feinoa and Lightsabr: I managed to dig through the the article referenced through an republished version (ST's premium paywall is a blocker for me). The figure is taken from a policy paper produced by Ministry of Health, (before accusation of incorrect fact) which in turn takes the data from The Lancet's Global Burden of Disease, which 2017's edition was only published progressively between 2018 and 2019. I will give on the bias of reporting, because it's Straits Times, and it can be bias when come to reporting Singapore on international front. I don't want to delve too deep into the report, turning this into a pseudo peer review session, but there are some quick points I would like to highlight. The data in the GBD is dated 2017. Hence, ranking would have fluctuate since then. Even so, I cannot readily find a source for the report numbers in GBD itself, but then again it is only 10 minutes since I have the page open. I suggest that we update the life expectancy accordingly if we are to keep the rankings paragraph. robertsky (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I see DerekHistorian is still at it. There really isn't a universal source to say which country has the longest life expectancy in the world, It's just isn't that straightforward. I guess the sentence could instead be changed to 'one of the longest life expectancies in the world' as almost every different source or rankings place Singapore in the top 3 or at the least the top 5. There are sources that do not place Hong Kong at the top as well but I doubt DerekHistorian cares anyway. Furthermore this is the Singapore article, so whatever happens in the Hong Kong article should not influence the edits here. Feinoa (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I've changed it. Feinoa (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I am filtering whatever DerekHistorian has mentioned and focusing only on the point of Singapore's life expectancy ranking, without comparison to Hong Kong or whatsoever country. robertsky (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I also have marked Demographics of Singapore for updating, seeing that the data in there are kinda dated. robertsky (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Both can put it up with their own sources if they care to do so. I have never heard of the source worldpopulationreview.com Lightsabr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood, something should really be done about DerekHistorian's reverts. They are definitely going to do it again in like 24 hours. At this point, Singapore is never ending up as a GA with their constant edit-warring... Feinoa (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Plausible aim to disrupt, which is why a pause is the best for now, at least to the lead. If it's too long, like a week, we can get his general view first for the body. Lightsabr (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This Hong Kong editor is like a madman on the loose.The worst of wikipedia must be, but you guys stayed cool. After reading above, I like to contribute what I found:

• https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singaporeans-topped-worlds-life-expectancy-list-at-848-years-study-154341110.html
• https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-tops-japan-world-longest-092122988.html
• https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singaporeans-living-longer-spending-greater-proportion-time-ill-health-study

Best.203.118.42.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. However these sources are pointing to the same primary source. robertsky (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

So we should start by cleaning up the false info. Will not pass GA review if what we say don't match the sourced.--Moxy 🍁 20:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky can you clarify? We are supposed to cite secondary sources instead of the primary. Or did you find a problem in the primary? Lightsabr (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I know we are suppose to cite secondary sources. What I meant to say is that these secondary sources are backing up the fact that it was reported as Singapore having the longest life expectancy in 2017 based from one report, which is brought up in 2019. But these sources do not answer the fact that Singapore's ranking have changed over time since 2017. robertsky (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky, I just saw your improvement on the "world competitiveness yearbook", well done. Side-by-side comparison is better than just 2019 alone, even though there are missing years. (sic Lightsabr)

@Lightsabr: With respect to World Competitiveness Yearbook edits: the previous edits add data in a random manner, which leads to the question of whether editors are selectively adding in years which shows better ranking of certain country/territory. This result in edit warring over a list between Feinoa and DerekHistorian, which I believe both sides are thinking that the other are adding or removing years to show that Hong Kong or Singapore are better than each other. We can add all data from 1997 - 2018, but then what's the difference from accessing the primary source then? And that also will raise the question of copyright violation. As far as I know the data is not of an open source nature. In choosing 5-year interval of the data, I hope it is transformative enough to avoid copyright issues, and also (from my rusty knowledge of stats and economics reporting), it is an interval not too big for a report over a long period of time, while a general trend is still observable. robertsky (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

About Life Expectancy, I have not dive into the Lancet report, but see if this explanation sounds right: 2017 can refer to 2 things - 1) report completed/published in 2017. 2) it also refers to LE for babies born in 2017 (not of current population, we should pass on earlier!). If the time lag, 2017-2019, is the same for data from other countries surveyed, it should be comparable. Often, getting data on yearly basis is not viable. The rankings was only announced this year to wait for feedback/peer-review? Lightsabr (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lightsabr: With regards to The Lancet, it is a reputable medical journal, but with delayed open access policy. With regards to your explanation: 1. The data set was last assembled in 2017. 2. It is indeed referring to the healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth. 3. I don't find the sources of in The Lancet's report, but I can imagine that it would have been derived from the countries'/territories' medical authorities or statistics department's report. I agree that collating such data may take time and effort, which is probably why organisations like the UN would use a bucketing system as well as a representative for the years bucketed. when making a comparison between nations. The data for 2018 and 2019 are more often than not published, just not collated. (i.e. Singstats having the 2019 estimates already.) Such rankings are fleeting and quite dynamic. Another case in point, passport ranking. Singapore passport ranking on number of visa-free countries fluctuates several times in a year, with the number 1 spot been passed around between Singapore, Japan, Germany and sometimes a fourth country when a country completes negotiations on visa-free arrangement. Imagine having to keep updating the article. With such frequent updates, and further more different competing sources which are reputable (World Bank, UN, The Lancet, etc), would you want to risk controversy here and come across as cherry picking? (well, it has already happen here.) robertsky (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I was in bed already..but quick reply. If you feel strongly about the LE, we can leave it out till the review is over; I just thought its a major announcement since Japan and the European countries were always saying its their clean air and diet that's the 'secret' but now Singapore and HK data may be showing that healthcare-related factors are key. If there are some researchers in MOH or the local agencies you read in the papers, it might be worthwhile to email them for a better understanding. ok goodnight.Lightsabr (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Morning. So I did a bit more poking around on Life expectancy. Seems like the organisation which introduced HALE is World Health Organisation, and their calculations stopped at 2016, and last published in 2018. You are right about it taking time. As for the HALE data in The Lancet, it will likely differ from WHO's calculations as HALE in the first place is a statistical treatment of existing factors, which would be dependent on how accurate the data collection that was carried out for each country. I read the Appendix of the MOH report, it describe leading factors which depress estimated HALE, but not the leading factors that lifted in. In The Lancet's report, it did not make direct comparison with countries like Japan or European countries, but rather United States, which was highlighted for the high levels of drug abuse. There's nothing in the reports to assert your statement (even though I do like the sound of it). I do want to ask medical researchers (and actuarial science people as well on their take on this), but it will taken time, and without them publishing their findings or commentary somewhere, it would be original research. Yes, we should take out the ranking of life expectancy in the Lead, rewrite the mention of it in the Health subsection to make it clearer what it is about. However, it is not because I feel particularly strong about life expectancy, but this is just an exercise to poke at just one ranking item. Now that DerekHistorian had (flippantly, in my opinion) questioned all the rankings, imagine the need to go through this process for every single item in the lead now? It is going to be a long and slow process to verify every assertion made on the page. T_T robertsky (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Had to wait for lunch break. In your ref #2, I found 87.55 yrs (Singapore Female), and a report published on November 10, 2018 (from ref #3) - " - I found: "...substantial variation in life expectancy at birth in 2017, which ranges from 49·1 years (46·5–51·7) for men in the Central African Republic to 87·6 years (86·9–88·1) among women in Singapore." - which matches exactly what I wrote in Singapore, under Healthcare - "In 2019, Singaporeans have the longest life expectancy of any country at 84.8 years. Females can expect to live an average of 87.6 years with 75.8 years in good health. The averages are lower for men.[28]" (sic LightSabr)

I would have the line updated though. It is similar, but adding some context which I think should be included, so that a reader can verify at a glance that it is from a reputable source. Hopefully, it also gives some leeway for counterclaims or additional data points from other reputable sources. robertsky (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"In a report published in 2019 by The Lancet, it was estimated that Singaporeans born in 2017 would have the longest healthy life expectancy at birth of any countries at 84.8 years. Females can expect to live an average of 87.6 years with 75.8 years in good health. The averages are lower for men." (refs to the SG report and the Lancet study to be included as appropriate.) (additional contrasting statements that hopefully do not qualify as synthesis of ideas:) "This is in contrast of <X numbers> estimated by World Health Organisation in 2015(?)" (close with a future supplementary published paper on literature review between the different sources) robertsky (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Your version looks fine. There is a lot I'd like to do as well, have to find time to read up. Lightsabr (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It's great that you are around as we are willing to get into the primary research to learn more. Yes, it's crossing into original research, but then that's how some major stuff are exposed! about my thoughts, you can search for "blue zones" where I previously read about diet and the environs they lived in; there were also many documenteries on NGC-Discovery channels, life extension is always a popular topic. I recall the places mentioned are particular districts or islands in Japan, Italy, Spain, not the whole country. So a reason for the long delay in announcing the results is likely to be caution since this is going to be a new leader in life expectancy, which will of course upset a lot of countries and other experts if the research is not water tight. Holes in high profile reports can end a researcher's credibility and career. Lightsabr (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe. Or maybe The Lancet had its fair share of controversies as well, hence the extra cautions to get things right too. robertsky (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Controversial ranking of Singapore world smartest city, most safest country, most technology ready nation. FULL OF MISLEADING LIES ignored again and again, SINGAPORE PAGE NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP

Wow so not only is the world life expectancy a fraud. Apparently everyone just ignores without checking on the outdated sources since 2018 and even during that time Singapore was not no.1 but other countries.

ALL IT'S SOURCES ON THE SINGAPORE DERIVES ONLY FROM SINGAPORE AND EVEN THOSE ARE OUTDATED

Many other sources puts different results for different country. This source shows ai dubai is the world smartest city published Sep 5 2019 [15]

This source puts Helsinki as the world smartest city 1 Sep 2019 [16]

'The World’s smartest cities 2019

Smart City Strategy Index (SCSI)

1️⃣ Vienna 🇦🇹

2️⃣ London 🇬🇧

3️⃣ St Albert 🇺🇸

4️⃣ Singapore 🇸🇬

[17]

'World safest country'

1 Iceland 1.072

2 New Zealand 1.221

3 Portugal 1.274

4 Austria 1.291

5 Denmark 1.316

The global peace index also does not put Singapore no.1 but no.8 Global peace index rankings ----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index#Global_Peace_Index_rankings_(2008%E2%80%932019)] [18]

Most technology read nation There's only a 2016 source which shows Singapore, there's no source 2017, 2018, 2019, any results could change by those years and there is no source for Singapore for more than 3 years, so it's no logically to still claim they are most technology read nation, it doesn't apply here anymore 100%. Also Singapore only recently became the world's most competitive economy in May 2019, is not even half a year, there is still several months always to finish 2019 statistic. Also if Singapore is allowed to be mentioned the most competitive economy why not the same for Hong Kong ?

EDIT: Most expensive city in the world ? Another misleading, many media and sources puts Hong Kong and Paris, again Singapore is not even mentioned most of time. WHOLE PAGE NEEDS A CLEAN UP DerekHistorian (talk) 10:58 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian

Could something be done about this disruptive user? They have reverted the same edits 4 times now, and I'm fairly confident this won't be the last. It is pretty clear that they have a personal vendetta against Singapore and its article, and will not stop until the article suits their own satisfaction, in disagreement with other users. Furthermore, when this article was being initially reviewed for GA, the lead was not questioned, so I'm pretty sure this is more than just the lead being the problem here. Feinoa (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Feinoa: I'd suggest you go to the edit-warring noticeboard. - Frood (talk!) 01:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have left a message on the talk page of DerekHistorian reminding them about WP:CIVIL. While they are at least using the article talk, their posts here (with all the bolding and too much information) are hard to respond to.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would propose a topic ban for DerekHistorian on articles related to Singapore and Hong Kong. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes hard to move forward with walls of text....that said the puppets can be fustrating. Perhaps best all involved step back for a bit.--Moxy 🍁 03:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a topic ban is necessary immediately, let's just go with a request now and see how it goes. I do agree that it is best for all involved to step back a bit.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That said, I can see that the article does have a lot of issues, such as the huge lead and some questionable references used.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Page is fully protected

As per a request on WP:RFP, the page is now fully protected for two days. This is done in the hope that methods of resolution to the current dispute that might lead to blocks of otherwise good editors can be avoided. That said, it's probably not realistic to advance full protection on such a significant article as this one beyond two days. I hope this time can be constructively used to initiate a more organized dialog on the Talk page or to explore alternate remedies to the current dispute. Finally, if any significant number of editors here feel that full protection is inappropriate (or, perhaps, is even itself disruptive) I will gladly revert it to its former semi-protected state with my apologies for any interruption I might have caused. Thank you all for your various contributions and passion about this subject. Chetsford (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am only keeping a half eye on this article because my attention is taken with the Fram case. I am concerned that with a GAN open there is edit warring happening, and an admin has to step in and fully protect the page. I am keeping the GAN open (I feel the ArbCom case will be closing within a few days so I can then come here and finish off the GAN), and I'll look more closely at what has been happening at that point. SilkTork (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, good to hear from you again and appreciate your assurance. Saw the quote by Obama on your Talk page, so wanted to mention this DYK - the Obamas are still Singapore's most admired couple in 2019. Thank you. Shiok (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC) (edited Shiok (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC))

@Chetsford: apologies, but can you reinstate the indef Move protection to preemptively prevent disruptive Move vandalism? There shouldn't be a need for a Move for such a cornerstone article, barring a drastic change in sovereignty. robertsky (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, robertsky Chetsford (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Tourism info

Leaving ranks aside for a while, the following was added recently which almost doubled the paragraph's size. I reckon there is not much difference between attractions and landmarks and we can do with less, say around 5? There are much better resources online like tripadvisor, lonely planet and country tourism portals.

• "The city-state's historical district features dozens of landmarks such as The Esplanade, Fort Canning Hill, the National Gallery Singapore, Raffles Hotel and the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple. There are also numerous famous attractions within the city-state, notably Gardens by the Bay, Marina Bay Sands, Sentosa Island, Orchard Road, Jewel Changi Airport and the Singapore Zoo, which was ranked the best zoo in Asia.[31] The Singapore Botanic Gardens is the only tropical garden in the world to be honoured as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.[32]"

Can we have some opinions as to keep as it is, or some favorite ones to include? To start, I will just mention one that is more obvious, Gardens by the Bay. Hope to get some feedback. Shiok (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO, Lead and the section need to a rewrite. I rather have a short summary of the development of tourism in the lead, but I cannot write a draft here without feeling a bit cynical about it while thinking back about the Geography lessons I had in secondary school at the moment. Here are some references. robertsky (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We can ask SilkTork later if he prefers a history or listing some attractions as is the case in other cities.Lightsabr (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky, it would be good to fix the tourism section first. It reads like an assortment of random facts and describes some specific tourist attractions, instead of tourism in general. Some of the information that could be expected from a tourism section are (1) contribution of tourism to employment/economy, (2) major steps taken to promote tourism (Ministry of Tourism and Merlion) (3) reasons why tourists visit (central location, good air connectivity, duty free shopping) (4) major tourist profile and (5) briefly list important tourist attractions.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

They were added as the GAN review may flagged it otherwise, which I assume is in comparison to other cities which already does. You can read it above, copied here: "Certainly, if there's nothing on tourism in the lead (I haven't looked yet, just responding directly to your ping), then, yes, it would benefit from a summary of the Tourism section, and I would bring it up as part of the review if there was no tourism summary"

But if need to shorten, I would leave out the original landmarks and keep some of the attractions. Feinoa added some so he may have a preference. Lightsabr (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I never really liked that paragraph all that much, and in my honest opinion it should be removed entirely. However, GA Reviewer SilkTork wanted more tourism information in the article and so I followed up and also added on places such as the Esplanade, Jewel, etc. It seems out of place and redundant though, as most of the attractions are repeated again in the tourism section. I'm not sure. Feinoa (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Will leave it for now then. It does serve a purpose and links to a few selected places is an indication that there are wikipedia pages for many places they may be interested in for further reading. Maybe others will add their choices here. Shiok (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it because it clearly doesn't belong in the lead of an article, a simple mention that the country attracts a significant amount of tourists would be enough rather than listing all the attraction individually. Zubin12 (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It does not say 'clearly' in any WP guides and mandatory for the review. Just a matter of which ones are more significant to list.Lightsabr (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually the list of places doesn't really belong in the lead. Ideally, the lead is supposed to read like a summary (something like an abstract which provides an overview without going into details). Tourism deserves a mention in the lead, but not individual tourist spots.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Removing Pointless fluff from the lead

This was previously brought up by user @derekHistoran and various other users, but due to the user's unhelpful attitude little progress has been made on resolving this with most of it boiling down to a personal conflict between the user and others, but let's face it. The rankings are pointless, out of date, and often lack any relevance to belonging in the lead. A lead must contain only the most notable fact's about Singapore which few of the rankings are while also reducing perceived credibility and hindering any reader trying to research or gain a better understanding of the issue. I'm going to exercise WP: IAR and remove the content without gaining formal consensus despite the fact that most users agree that the leed needs to be rewritten and request a formal RFC in order to gain a consensus without the personal drama caused by the actions of a few specific users frustrated by the slow processZubin12 (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC regarding the inclusion of Rankings

Should the following paragraph be included in this articles lead ?

"Singapore is a global hub for education,[9] finance, healthcare,[10] innovation,[11] manufacturing,[12] technology,[13] tourism,[14] trade, and transport.[15] The city-state does well in international rankings, including: the most "technology-ready" nation (WEF), most competitive economy (IMD),[16][17] top International-meetings city (UIA),[18][19] city with "best investment potential" (BERI), Smart City,[20] Safest country,[21][22] third least-corrupt country, third-largest foreign exchange market, third-largest financial centre, third-largest oil refining and trading centre, fifth-most innovative country, and the second-busiest container port.[23] The city-state is classified as an Alpha+ global city, indicating its influence on the global economy. Singapore is the only country in Asia with an AAA sovereign rating from all major rating agencies, and one of 11 worldwide. Globally, the Port of Singapore and Changi Airport have held the titles of leading "Maritime Capital" and "Best Airport" respectively for consecutive years, while Singapore Airlines is the 2018 "World's Best Airline".[24][25] " Zubin12 (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Robertsky, Lightsabr, 1.02 editor, SilkTork, Moxy, Trili, R22-3877, Jane Dawson, and Horserice: The article has current been changed to robertsky's compromise paragraph, could you guy also reply with your opinion regarding the compromise below?

"The city-state is classified as an Alpha+ global city, indicating its influence on the global economy. Singapore is the only country in Asia with an AAA sovereign rating from all major rating agencies, and one of 11 worldwide. Singapore is a highly developed country and is ranked 9th on the UN Human Development Index, the highest in Asia for a sovereign state, with the 3rd highest GDP per capita in the world. It was ranked the most expensive city to live in from 2013 to 2019 by the Economist.[9] It is identified as a tax haven.[10] Singapore is placed highly in key social indicators: education, healthcare, quality of life, personal safety and housing, with a home-ownership rate of 90%. Singaporeans enjoy one of the world's longest life expectancy and one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.[11] As of 2019, Singaporean citizens had visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to 189 countries and territories, ranking the Singaporean passport 1st in the world, tied with Japan.[12]"

Zubin12 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zubin12: These edits will not have notified Robertsky, Lightsabr, KN2731, 1.02 editor, Feinoa, SilkTork, Jeppiz, Moxy, Shiok, Trili, R22-3877, Jane Dawson or Horserice. You need to get it right the first time, making subsequent amendments will not retrigger a failed notification. More at WP:Echo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

My response given below still stands. The entire paragraph should be removed until a consensus of what to include in the lead is reached. Jane Dawson (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't wish to get involved too much in the editorial decisions in building this article. Reviewers should remain neutral. What I will be looking for in the lead is an overview of Singapore, summarising the main points raised in the article, as per WP:Lead. There shouldn't be a statement in the lead that is not also in the main body (such as " classified as an Alpha+ global city"). There shouldn't be a section in the article that is not summarised in the lead. Working on the lead separately from the main body is not often the best way of doing things. Write the article. Make sure the article is fine, then use the main body of the article to create your lead.

What I will also be looking at is that there is broad coverage in the article - so there should be information on education and healthcare. Perceptions such as quality of life, and personal safety are additional pieces of information not always found in a GA article on settlements, and while they can and should be included if such perceptions are shown to be widely reported such that they are a common feature on discussions about the settlement, they are not required pieces of information. It is known as a major trading centre, so I would expect some mention of that in the main body, along with an explanation of why it is such a world leader, with a summary both of the fact and the reason in the lead. I would expect an indication in the article and so therefore in the lead of the government's control and influence on Singapore's financial development.

I will also be looking that the article stays focussed, so a lot of detail or weight on a particular aspect I will question. I would, for example, question a paragraph that sets out to insist on Singapore's "influence" with a string of features, particularly when this assertion of influence is both uncited and not discussed (and it appears not even mentioned) in the main body.

I will be looking out for examples of original research where statements are made which are not directly found in sources, but which are arrived at by editors' own interpretation of facts. The facts may be true. But if they are not explicitly stated in sources, then we should not be saying them. Do we have a source for Singapore's "influence on the global economy"?

I will be looking at balance to ensure the article is neutral. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't expect to see a series of positive statements, but alert and inquiring readers may get concerned to read long sections of high praise without accompanying balance, such as concerns about falling GDP. Am I missing in the article information about the fall in GDP in Singapore: [19], [20], [21]? Is this information in the article and I'm not seeing it?

My suggestion to folks working to improve the article is to concentrate on getting the main body right first, then work on the lead. It's easier and more effective that way, and tends to be less confrontational as well! SilkTork (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

*No, all of those specifics should not be included in the lead. A lead paragraph also should not have so many citations. AND the lead should not exceed four paragraphs. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• My stand is, no. Rankings change over time and are subjective, even the same metrics can be debatable depending on the source of data, i.e. life expectancy. robertsky (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• We should give due respect to the current article review process first. It is in progress by an establish reviewer who was also an WP:Arbcom member; we are mostly recent contributors in comparison. Lightsabr (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)\

The reviewer has stated that the article needs clean-up and organization, ultimately it's up to us to make appropriate changes as WP:NOT isn't a hierarchical organization, compare the current page with that of saying Croatia which is a good article nominee. It doesn't have the pointless listing of the countries ranking in ever metrict just a general description that country is highly delvopedZubin12 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not, but many new-to-SG and inactive editors started coming in mostly after the review is in progress, when the article has been stable previously. Croatia is a beautiful country, but we are a city-state and rankings are mostly associated with cities. Contrast the difference between USA and NYC articles instead. Lightsabr (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Or UK and London. Lightsabr (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

If you compare United States () with New York City, you can understand why US is a good article and NYC isn't. You can also look a this version of NYC [22] which was a featured article and compare it with the current article.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The rankings included in the articles of other global cities tend to either be superlatives which make sense as they are inherently notable or else popular/well-known metrics, the ones included here lack any direct relevance and are often hard to understand such as "Technology Read","Investment Potenial" and "Innovative" due to their inherent subjectivity. Some of them are outright misleading including the one regarding corruption as it's uncited and i'm almost certain it's derived from one of a corruption perception index. Even if you disagree with removing all of the rankings, as a compromise perhaps only the superfluous or subjective/uncited rankings could be removed.Zubin12 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

".. are outright misleading including the one regarding corruption as it's uncited and i'm almost certain it's derived from one of a corruption perception index." - Zubin12, are you quite sure you did the checks to make such a strong statement? Shiok (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well it's uncited so I could be wrong but it would be an incredible coincidence if Singapore was also third on the corruption perception index and another uncited index regarding corruption. The corruption perception index doesn't directly measure levels of corruption but rather public and expert perception of the level of corruption, meaning that it can't be used to support the statment "third least-corrupt country" as that isn't what it measures. Zubin12 (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapore-rises-to-third-place-in-annual-ranking-of-least-corrupt-countries-global-study

"Singapore has been consistently rated among the least corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International." - this citation is in the body text if you just went there. If you search for "denmark least corrupt" it is also in all the headlines and that's what wikipedia reports. Perception is explained in the two links in the sentence itself. Just wanted to make sure everyone understand this. Shiok (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Newspapers and the press may editorialize but that shouldn't be the case on Wikipedia, also your point regarding Denmark is wrong as it explicity states that it's talking about corruption perception "has the lowest perceived level of corruption in the world," Zubin12 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you are reading the news in one report itself which is the details. I mentioned the 'headlines' of most reports would be the shorten form "least corrupt". Did you go to the 'News' tab in your google search and see a long list of 10 or more reports on your screen? I will suggest everyone reading this to try the same - search for 'least corrupt singapore|denmark' and let us know. Thanks Shiok (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not make the same argument as what DerekHistorian did. Number of barnstars is irrelevant, and neither is being in the Arbcom (no offences to SilkTork and the Arbcom members, past and present, intended). Arbcom serves as a last resort to resolve disputes, not to resolve article content, that being said being in Arbcom does command some respect from the rest. SilkTork being an established reviewer is a good and relevant point, and he raising the need to clean-up and organise is too. We are a city-state, but would you rather want the article to be seen as a city or a state? robertsky (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And as much as I am tempted to leave everything to SilkTork to point out, don't forget, we are operating on the basis of consensus. Let me quote him directly: "Prose works, but tends to journalese, informality, and could be more concise. There tends, such as the opening sentences, to be an accumulation of detail crudely presented which is not inviting to read, and is therefore counter-productive in conveying the information." I do believe that this applies to the ranking paragraph in the lead as well. robertsky (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Indiscriminate lists of rankings violate WP:NOTSTATS and honestly the paragraph as it stands reads like the article is attempting to paint a favourable picture of Singapore which goes against WP:PROPAGANDA. High rankings are notable but that does not automatically merit inclusion, and in this case I fail to see how these rankings, which change yearly and vary between different organisations, add value to the opening lead. I also agree with SilkTork's comments in the GA review quoted by robertsky above. If the message of the paragraph is to convey that Singapore is highly developed, it can and should be done without a long-winded list of rankings that are not beneficial to readability. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

References

• Neutral leaning oppose I think i have said enough in previous comments above. Im kind of neutral about this but will oppose if there are no ways to trim and verify the rankings. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support If you want to remove the lead, I suggest spreading out the information about these rankings in other sections such as mentioning how Singapore is one of the least corrupt countries in the world at the economy section and how Changi Airport/Singapore Airlines is the best airport/airline in the world at the tourism section. You just can't remove it entirely and then pretend that none of these rankings mean anything. I'm pretty sure some of these rankings are pretty notable for a small city-state and should be included in the article. We don't need another DerekHistorian situation here, I'm confident other editors are tired of it too. I just don't understand why unfamiliar editors to this article have suddenly piped in to put the lead under scrutiny only just when it's trying to become a GA. Feinoa (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is a reasonable amount of unsettlement regarding this article. I remain of the opinion that this article can be made to meet GA criteria, though with the current level of unsettlement that is not going to happen as quickly as I hoped. I don't see it as appropriate to leave these disagreements and discussions until after the review - they need to be resolved before the green badge can be awarded. We can either put this article on indefinite hold (though with a limit of, say, 1 or 2 months), or we can close it now as a GA fail, and the article can be nominated again when all the issues are dealt with. I am OK with either option. If this GAN is closed, I will make myself available to review the next one so there won't be a delay in waiting for a reviewer. I will be away from 15 to 31 Oct, so will be unable to do any reviewing between those dates. Would folks please indicate which they would prefer - an indefinite/long hold or an immediate close. SilkTork (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

By allowing another 1 or 2 months, you're basically just giving this page another 3 millions of page views. Why not remove the lead section first or restore to it's original form like Zubin12. When wikipedia isn't sure of something you remove it first than disccuss, not allowing it as long as it can while the page keeps getting daily views. This Singapore page gets massive views everyday by allowing it it's just misleading millions more with controversial rankings claims.- DerekHistorian (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for waiting this out for us. Assuming you need a week at least to finish up a review and you will be away from 15 Oct, can we aim to get some stability by next Sunday 5 Oct? -failing which we still have the 2-month window you offered. Lightsabr (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm really OK with waiting. So let's talk about this again on 5th Oct. Please ping me if I forget. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:PROPAGANDA. This is a cherrypicking of rankings where Singapore does well, while rankings where it does poorly are absent. This includes important rankings, such as those for democracy and freedom, where Singapore places badly. We certainly won't cherrypick just positive claims for any country. Jeppiz (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If you read closer, there are mentions to democracy index ranking and Singapore being a tax haven in the lead. Those are not removed or being debated to be removed. robertsky (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support— every country is entitled to have them in the lead. Closer to home, here is just one example: “Japan maintains a modern military with the world's eighth-largest military budget,[24] used for self-defense and peacekeeping roles; it ranked as the world's fourth most-powerful military in 2015.[25] Japan is a highly developed country with a very high standard of living and Human Development Index. Its population enjoys one of the highest life expectancy and the third lowest infant mortality rate in the world, but is experiencing issues due to an aging population and low birthrate. As of 2019, Japanese citizens had visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to 189 countries and territories, ranking the Japanese passport 1st in the world, tied with Singapore.[26]” There are many other countries. 183.90.36.118 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Next, the city of Tokyo -

"Tokyo ranks first in the Global Economic Power Index and third in the Global Cities Index. The GaWC's 2018 inventory classified Tokyo as an alpha+ world city [15] – and as of 2014 TripAdvisor's World City Survey ranked Tokyo first in its "Best overall experience" category (the city also ranked first in the following categories: "helpfulness of locals", "nightlife", "shopping", "local public transportation" and "cleanliness of streets").[16] As of 2018 Tokyo ranked as the 2nd-most expensive city for expatriates, according to the Mercer consulting firm.[17] and also the world's 11th-most expensive city according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's cost-of-living survey.[18] In 2015, Tokyo was named the Most Liveable City in the world by the magazine Monocle.[19] The Michelin Guide has awarded Tokyo by far the most Michelin stars of any city in the world.[20][21] Tokyo was ranked first out of all sixty cities in the 2017 Safe Cities Index.[22] It was also ranked the first in the 2019 safe cities index.[23] The QS Best Student Cities ranked Tokyo as the 3rd-best city in the world to be a university student in 2016[24] and 2nd in 2018.[25] Tokyo hosted the 1964 Summer Olympics, the 1979 G-7 summit, the 1986 G-7 summit, and the 1993 G-7 summit, and will host the 2019 Rugby World Cup, the 2020 Summer Olympics and the 2020 Summer Paralympics. " 183.90.37.104 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Together Tokyo and Japan articles are equivalent to Singapore's only article as a city-state, but the statistics here are comparably less. 183.90.37.104 (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as currently written..... main points should be pulled out....the rest scattered throughout the article. Lead overall should be summarized like it is at Canada... the lead simply not the place for stats of this nature.--Moxy 🍁 14:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Strange that mainly the ones with top ranks tend to list them in their lead, example "Vancouver is consistently named as one of the top five worldwide cities for livability and quality of life,[11][12][13] and the Economist Intelligence Unit acknowledged it as the first city ranked among the top-ten of the world's most well-living cities[14] for five consecutive years." Others that have less may be editing their country's lead so none appear, then argue that it is easier to read or whatever, and that others should follow them --183.90.36.118 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Vancouver is not that bad.... one sentence be it a run on one versus a giant paragraph is a big difference.--Moxy 🍁 15:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Retention of long-standing 'hard statistics' and major rankings, at least for those which survived consensus and kept for many years. Most of the following has been in the lead since 2015. They are just as relevant today, highlighting a wide spectrum of Singapore's economic activities.

• Hard stats: third-largest foreign exchange market, third-largest financial centre, third-largest oil refining and trading centre, second-busiest container port.
• Major rankings: most competitive economy, Meetings centre, Corruption perception.
• Infrastructure: Leading Port and Airport titles are stable, multi-year standings

Notables to discuss:

+ Technology-ready ranking, EIU

other descriptions in the news - "most tech-ready economy", "first in technological readiness"

+ "best investment potential city", EIU/BER

has been stable for years.

a major cities has similar rankings in lead - "most investment friendly,[28]", "leading investment destination"

+ Singapore Airline

'best airline' - as a consumer brand, may seem like publicity here

+ Smart City, Safest country

Smart City - not just local, but a major initiative and collaboration to connect ASEAN cities

'Personal safety' is mentioned in lead, choose one

+ 5th-most innovative country

If we keep only top-3 rankings, then innovation at 5th can go.

- Shiok (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Shiok: Rather than listing the rankings as they are, I feel that these should be rewritten into prose to summarise the strengths of modern Singapore. Furthermore the descriptions are WP:PUFF. Once or twice should be fine, but so many in the paragraph turns it into a promotional piece. These ranking facts are already in the body. For smart city, can you find reference to back the assertion to connect ASEAN cities? It isn't in the original ref for smart city.

Here's how I would incorporate the details, additions in bold:

Although its history stretches back millennia, modern Singapore was founded in 1819 by Sir Stamford Raffles as a trading post of the British East India Company. After the Company's collapse in 1858, the islands came under direct British control as a crown colony known as the Straits Settlements. During the Second World War, Singapore was occupied by Japan, following which Britain occupied it again. Singapore gained independence from the British Empire in 1963 by joining Malaysia along with Sabah and Sarawak, but separated two years later over ideological differences, becoming a fully sovereign state in 1965. After early years of turbulence and despite lacking natural resources and a hinterland, the nation developed rapidly as an Asian Tiger economy, based on external trade and its workforce. Capitalising on its geographic position and strong continuous political mandate to effect long-term policies,(need to find ref for the political mandate. apologies. -.-") Singapore has since developed itself into a globally acknowledged transportation hub for air and sea links, (refs for Port of Singapore and Changi Airport here) be an investment friendly and technologically ready city, (ref here), and develop strong internationally well-known brands such as Singapore Airline.(ref here) robertsky (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky, there is only so much you can write in prose. If we accept that these represent some of the city's best acheivements that readers should, or even entitled to know, then prose is not an efficient way to convey them. Unfortunately the vast number of visitors read only the lead (I wonder if there is some statistics or survey on this) - so the opportunity is lost if they are presented just a general overview that is rather similar to many other city's article and never return. They are unlikely to recall what is distinctive about the city. I do have more to suggest, maybe you can think of my brief points and we can discuss again. Shiok (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Had give some thoughts about this. Will be weaving some details in soon. Have been feeling under the weather recently. robertsky (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support Do some people realise what they are saying. We are talking about what the world has recognised as the pre-eminent seaport and airport on the planet. Which other city has ever achieve that, and over so many years? And all the other honors that probably took decades to achieve. I see nothing wrong in having them in the summary lead. In fact, it would be irresponsible to leave it out, since they have been here for so many years by past editors as Shoik said above. I support this, readers need to know what is outstanding about the country. Trilia (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Trilia things existing does not mean that it should be included in the lead. Currently the whole section on the rankings are an unsightly mess and it being there for many years doesnt mean it cannot be removed. 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The statistics are going into far to much detail, detail that should be reserved for the body. Moreover, by painting a positive picture of Singapore (and given the number of rankings that one can put in, by a rather significant degree), the paragraph is more or less self-promotion of Singapore, which is in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. A short statement, such as 'Singapore does well in several international rankings' would suffice. R22-3877 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Some of the rankings such as home-ownership rate (if you actually dig into the archive of this talk page or research more about it) and corruption perception index are contentious to begin with. Others are subjective and depends on the parameters used and weightage given by the organisation doling out the ranking. It is certainly WP:UNDUE to be in the lede. Given that there is no WP:CONCENSUS, it should be removed. Jane Dawson (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose As it's written right now, the introduction reads like a report card for Singapore and not an effective opening to the article. Many of the included rankings aren't relevant to introducing the topic of the city (Why are the sovereign debt rating, passport ranking, and the Economist's ranking on the most expensive city to live in included so early in the article? Much too detailed to start.) or of dubious value (The alpha+ ranking sticks out; while "global city" might be a topic of some academic speculation, there's no universally defined or widely used scale for ranking city influence like this. Results would change depending on what institution's doing the ranking and what criteria they're grading cities on. The inclusion of this ranking in the lead feels particularly promotional). Horserice (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in its current form. It seems undue and an attempt to puff up Singapore, which doesn't need puffing up. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as presented. It reads like an advert. The lede is a general summary, not a list of tidbits. Many rankings here, even if sourced, are still subjective; different organizations would use different criteria and get different rankings, and they change over time anyway, so aren't inherently part of the subject. If the list of ranking was cut way down and distributed in the body in the appropriate sections, maybe, but this RFC isn't proposing that. Oh, and please no more comments on what other articles do -- feeble whataboutism; different articles on different subjects are... different! --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

With due respect, WP:Lead does not have the phrase "general summary". In many cases, precision is better than general. There is an example above (by Lightsabr) - "3rd largest" vs "one of the largest" oil trading centre - which is preferable?' - I prefer precision over general, and I suspect most people too. It gives you specific information in the same or shorter space. 183.90.37.104 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I quote WP:LEAD, if you will. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." Sounds like a description of 'general summary' to me. robertsky (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The most relevant part of your quote is "a summary of its most important contents". Thats where supporters and opposers’ opinions defer and we need to discuss this rather than focus on removing whole paragraphs.183.90.37.104 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

So, we need to include these ranking because... Singapore is most importantly known as being the 3rd least corrupt country by one group's judgement? Seriously? Singapore is a remarkable and unique place; these rankings make it sound like just one city among many.

As to removing whole paragraphs, we can indeed WP:NUKEIT if it's fundamentally worthless, or less than worthless as in this case of a list of faint praises making Singapore seem common and uninteresting. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Analysis of paragraph

Text as taken from this revision:

Singapore is a global hub for education, finance, healthcare, innovation, manufacturing, technology, tourism, trade, and transport.

education - relies on the ranking from PISA studies, primarily the last available results released in 2015. However, academic literature has cautioned the use of PISA scores to make "sweeping conclusions about the quality and effectiveness of countries’ education systems based on country ranking". There are also criticism on how PISA questionnaires are being administered which leads to certain biases inherent in the report. Furthermore, OCED " explains that policy makers should not use results either to indict or commend education systems. Furthermore, they should not use the results to make important policy decisions. In fact, the OECD authors explain that PISA results are due to a combination of variables, including but not limited to schooling, life experiences/home environment, poverty, access to early childhood programs, and health". PISA ends up being a proxy measurement of economic health. Although I cannot find the research specifically on Singapore's result, but one can imagine that these biases may be advantageous to us. Apparently the English version is shorter (in terms of printed length, questions are the same throughout the different languages. but there are claims that attention span among the students/parents tested is a factor to be taken into account. The next PISA scoring will be out at the end of the year. No doubt, there will be a change in the ranking, how the data is collected and interpreted, etc, and with another round of heated discussions from the academics.

Opinion: The mention of hub for education should be removed. Furthermore, the mention of Singapore being placed highly in key social indicator for education is there.

Rewrite into body No need. PISA is mentioned in the Education section already.

finance - no citation. remove

healthcare - based on Bloomberg Health Index, which measures factors affecting health. A rehash of the GBD arguments will ensue here. Cutting the long story short, it will be a conflicting source, if you want to lump it together with the discussion of the GCD data.

Rewrite into body Reference move at the most.

innovation - relies on on a ranking done by WIPO, "based on 80 criteria, running the gamut from intellectual property filing rates to mobile-application creation, education spending and scientific and technical publications".

Opinion: This is an indication of economic success.

Rewrite into body Yes. Move to economy

Manufacturing - relies on ranking don by WEF.

Opinion: This is an indication of economic success

Rewrite into body Yes. Move to economy.

(I got sleepy doing this before sleep, so here's one general sentence to cover the rest for now) General opinion: this sentence functions poorly as a summary. If the sentence is meant to be a summary of modern Singapore's success as a society, the other paragraphs in the lead covers that. If the sentence is meant to be a summary of key points of the success, it is WP:DBTF, drop the sentence.

The city-state does well in international rankings, including: the most "technology-ready" nation (WEF), most competitive economy (IMD), top International-meetings city (UIA), city with "best investment potential" (BERI), Smart City, Safest country, third least-corrupt country, third-largest foreign exchange market, third-largest financial centre, third-largest oil refining and trading centre, fifth-most innovative country, and the second-busiest container port.

Promotional tone. WP:PUFF? Shorten if want to keep in lead. Contains repetitive ideas i.e. container port, innovative country. If condensed further, all these are economic metrics.

The city-state is classified as an Alpha+ global city, indicating its influence on the global economy.

No opinion on this

Singapore is the only country in Asia with an AAA sovereign rating from all major rating agencies, and one of 11 worldwide.

No opinion on this.

Globally, the Port of Singapore and Changi Airport have held the titles of leading "Maritime Capital" and "Best Airport" respectively for consecutive years, while Singapore Airlines is the 2018 "World's Best Airline".

Promotional tone. WP:PUFF? This can be moved into the infra section.

Singapore is a highly developed country and is ranked 9th on the UN Human Development Index, the highest in Asia for a sovereign state, with the 2nd highest GDP per capita in the world.

No opinion on this

It was ranked the most expensive city to live in from 2013 to 2019 by the Economist.

No opinion on this

It is identified as a tax haven.

No opinion on this.

Singapore is placed highly in key social indicators: education, healthcare, quality of life, personal safety and housing, with a home-ownership rate of 90%.

No opinion on this.

Singaporeans enjoy one of the world's longest life expectancy and one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

No opinion on this. Had covered this a previous discussion.

As of 2019, Singaporean citizens had visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to 189 countries and territories, ranking the Singaporean passport 1st in the world, tied with Japan.

No opinion on this.

The paragraph does need a rewrite or trimming.

Proposal

The paragraph after removing excess:

The city-state is classified as an Alpha+ global city, indicating its influence on the global economy. Singapore is the only country in Asia with an AAA sovereign rating from all major rating agencies, and one of 11 worldwide. Singapore is a highly developed country and is ranked 9th on the UN Human Development Index, the highest in Asia for a sovereign state, with the 2nd highest GDP per capita in the world. It was ranked the most expensive city to live in from 2013 to 2019 by the Economist. It is identified as a tax haven. Singapore is placed highly in key social indicators: education, healthcare, quality of life, personal safety and housing, with a home-ownership rate of 90%. Singaporeans enjoy one of the world's longest life expectancy and one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. Singaporeans enjoy one of the world's longest life expectancy and one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. As of 2019, Singaporean citizens had visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to 189 countries and territories, ranking the Singaporean passport 1st in the world, tied with Japan.

Parts to be rewritten into the body:

• Port of Singapore and Changi Airport into infrastructure
• innovation and manufacturing point into economy.

The paragraph before reduction is just an information dump on Singapore's ranking in relation to other countries. Controversial and promotional tone on the entire paragraph.

The paragraph after reduction covers key information on living in Singapore.

Thoughts, guys?

robertsky (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice, sounds good to me. Feinoa (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a definite improvement. The changes between past and present tense are a little jarring but I'm not sure much else can be done. The sentence on most expensive city was duplicated but I've dealt with that, and I added a couple of spaces after sentences. Much thanks for the sentence-by-sentence analysis. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the errors. My browser was lagging out with multiple wikipedia edit windows opened. Feel free to adjust the paragraph further to make the text flow better. robertsky (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems like an acceptable fix to the articles current problems.Zubin12 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Lowest corruption perception" and removing the word "country" - you have made it worse or vague, especially for the layman or non-English speaker. For a moment, I was wondering - is lowest or highest the better score? As a standalone without context of a longer sentence, this is bad. 183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This phrase wasn't covered in the analysis here, but I would have suggested it to be rewritten into the body as well under the economy section. robertsky (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have given the replacement a check once more and fixed the reference issue when the modified paragraph was copied over. And apparently the parts to be rewritten into the body are already in the body. ^.^ So I guess the changes are in placed? robertsky (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Robertsky. I think this is a pretty good fix and the lead looks much better now.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Should be fine. Works as an effective compromise. R22-3877 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I guess it is TLDR to me. Your RFC heading reads whether rankings should be included and I am responding based on that. I am not sure if you are putting the cart before the horse by working out the lede when the body has not been fully fixed. Perhaps you should have a separate RFC if you think this compromise would work. Jane Dawson (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jane Dawson: my hope for this proposed change is so that we can stop bickering about the lead in its current form, stop being distracted and start working on the body and related pages. I am under no illusion that the lead won't change later. robertsky (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

third lowest perceived level of corruption" vs "third least-corrupt country"

So which do people think is easier to understand? 183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've edited it to hopefully make it more clear but saying it's the third least corrupt is activley misleading as it's based on a measure of percived corruption rather than an investigation of actual corruption. Unlike other metrics such as Life expectancy or GDP per capita,"Corruption" is hard to define and create a metric for because it's both hidden and hard to define with various border cases being different in different countries.Zubin12 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Better but still not ideal. I would still pause to take in that word combination using “lowest”. How about "third best country on Corruptions Perceptions Index".183.90.36.118 (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise there was a discussion here. I have changed it to "third on Corruption Perceptions Index". Zubin12 is correct about the fact that saying "third least corrupt" is misleading. However, since we already have an article on Corruption Perceptions Index, the easiest way to state this is to simply quote the rank and link to the index.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This point wasn't covered in my review. I would have this placed in the economy section of the body as well. robertsky (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"third on Corruption Perceptions Index" is as vague as the first version. You need to say "third best on Corruption Perceptions Index", people don't know whether a high or low rank equates to best/worst. Was it deliberate? 183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't use expressions like "third best" or "third worse" since these represent an oversimplification of a much more nuanced ranking. Many rankings also cannot be classified into clear "best" or "worse" categories. If the ranking is available, we simply state the position and link to the ranking, letting the user figure this out themselves--DreamLinker (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Who is "We"? - it is you and your nuanced vague description. Almost every media describe it as least-corrupt because it is understandable to the layman. Perception is explained as the methodology of survey. You should take your nonsense to third party opinion or the grammar noticeboard and get feedback. Then we discuss your nuances again.183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please be civil in your replies. Not every media describes it as "least corrupt" and Wikipedia is clearly supposed to favour accuracy over presenting inaccurate views simply because it is "understandable to the layman". You assertion is also not supported since most news sources actually state the ranking/score and index instead of putting qualifiers like "best" or "worst" [23], [24], [25], [26].--DreamLinker (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So who is "We". I said "least-corrupt" is normally used, not best/worst. Selected refs does nothing for your story if people don’t read the details. If you want to put a single line summary, it better not be vague. Just put up your "Third on Corruptions Perception Index" at a noticeboard if you think you are right. Then we meet there.183.90.36.118 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"We" is usually used in context of Wikipedia editors and I used it because what I said reflects the current consensus view. As for "people don’t read the details", that's your own perception. Anyway, if you want to use "least corrupt" please bring some references to show that it is widely used. Alternatively, we can simply remove it from the lead (which is probably best) and explain in one of the sections.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Third on Corruptions Perception Index" - these are your own rewrites, a claimed "consensus view" that is only by yourself. I do not see anyone coming in to support your vague deceptive summary. You know of course many readers who are new to the index may interpret it as the third most corrupt country. So your perverted refusal to acknowledge this vagueness in your next response will be reflective of other malicious content edits too. -183.90.37.104 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

IMF GDP data

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

---

I know some of you can't read sources (seriously, PAP socks need better skills, I thought you were highly educated?), so I helpfully included a link to GDP per capita with IMF data from 2017 to 2024: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2019/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2017&ey=2024&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=60&pr1.y=11&c=137%2C516%2C453%2C576%2C178&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a= Singapore is not due to overtake Luxembourg until 2023 according to IMF estimates. Yny501 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You are already discussing on his talk page, there's no need to throw shades at everyone here. Did you think you can agitate us to edit-war at HK article as well? Good luck to your street protests la.183.90.37.104 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

When did I bring up the HK article? Calm down, you're the one who's accusing people of things they're not doing. How many warnings do you need before it's enough? Your attitude to this article is basically let's see how much I can get away with, and that's not my problem, unless you're just making blatantly false edits. Yny501 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

God, Hongkongers truly are a sensitive bunch. Feinoa (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The above statement is almost as ironic as the purchasing patterns of Chinese consumers. Also, it's really not anyone else's problem if you happen to be illiterate, but the PAP should be spending less on their online security budget. Yny501 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

183.90.37.104, Feinoa, Yny501: Seriously, just stop comparing each other to things you don’t like. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 22:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother anyway. If you disagree with them, you will always be labeled as a shill. That's the only thing that they can come up with. Feinoa (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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