Talk:Chinese Singaporeans

This article is severely lacking compared to Chinese Malaysians, despite having a shared, almost identical history

I feel like this article is quite barren and not up to standard as compared to Chinese Malaysians, which is quite weird considering its Singapore that has a Chinese-majority population, not Malaysia. It would probably be beneficial if there's a Singaporean editor who is enthusiastic enough to improve this article.

There are also many parts of the Chinese Malaysians article which could be appropriated here, such as the part about the "Struggle for equality under the proposed Malaysian Malaysia (1963–1965)" which talks about the People's Action Party and Lee Kuan Yew. Although it was prior to Singapore's independence in 1965, this is considered as much as or even more Singaporean than Malaysian history IMO. MarionLang (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

MarionLang, from my recollections of being educated in Singapore schools, "Malaysian Malaysia" was a struggle for equality for all races, not only for Chinese race, even if many of the main drivers were the Chinese-led political parties. But yes, the section 'Post 1945' warrants an expansion, it has been 76 years since 1945. – robertsky (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced changes/removal

@Brjewian : Hi there~! I like to explain that I reverted your changes as they were mostly unsourced or unexplained. Changes are expected to come with sources to verify what you modified and edit summary to show what you had changed etc. Other editors looking at the change can pick up the reference and see whether the edit is correct or not. Removal would not have any sources but an edit summary would explain what and why you are removing it. While unsourced statements can be removed, do leave an edit summary explaining why so other editors can understand why and not revert your changes.

As there were changes/removal without sources or/and edit summaries, reverting to the last good version (regardless whether are they sourced or not) is quite common. I noted that were some good edits which I appreciated but with the amount of edits, there are some edits which cannot be undo and reverting to the last good version is easier. I am sorry that you might have to redo some of the edits, please do explain the edits in edit summaries. Thanks Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Brjewian:, I have no position on the content dispute, but I would advise you to discuss it with Justanothersgwikieditor and not callously label another editor's edits as vandalism or "unexplained revert" without evidence. Justanothersgwikieditor has laid out his reasons for the revert, and it would be best to discuss it on the talkpage of the article. Please consider the three revert rule, where no editor is allowed to revert an article non-consecutively beyond three times a day. Seloloving (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to reason with him but he has not given a valid explanation and he has not proven any of my edits wrong in the first place. I also did not add any new info and I was only correcting grammar errors of phrases that already had no sources before i even edited so I dont know why I am being coerced to add sources. Brjewian (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Brjewian for the amount of changes you that you have done, it would have been great to use edit summary. This would have allowed those involved to better decide which atomic edit to revert, rather than treating the entire series of successive edits as one chunk of edit.

Whilst there are a number of changes that are correcting grammar errors, there are also changes you made that changed the meaning of the sentences [1].

Example 1: You had changed from which in many cases were false accounts based on personal vendettas. There was also active anti-Japanese resistance during the war, such as Force 136, headed by Lim Bo Seng to which in many cases were false accounts based on criminals or vendettas. criminals? source?

Example 2: Traditionally, Chinese Singaporeans used 'their respective mother tongues as their main avenue of communication. to Traditionally, Chinese Singaporeans used to speak Chinese as their main avenue of communication as with the Indians using the Tamil language. What's Indians using Tamil language got to do with Chinese Singaporeans? And "respective mother tongues" is not just simply "Chinese" in this respect, given that section was rewritten roughly in chronological order. That paragraph can be read as for early migrants to Singapore since Standard Chinese is covered in the subsequent paragraph for the 80s.

WP:BRD is clear. You make bold edits, someone else, in this case, JASWE reverts, and you open discussion. However, your reasoning isn't really reasonable, with you launching into personal attacks at him. JASWE didn't explain what may happen if there's no civil discussion, but a block may be in order if the behaviour continues.

It is not a "coercion", but a required burden to provide sources for contestable statements, existing text that lacks sources non-withstanding. Also note that there are non in-line sources indicated in the Reference section, which may have backed what's seemingly unsourced statements that you are trying to change.

@Seloloving had reverted some of your work while preserving the rest that seems to be sourced. If you would like to update the article for grammar, go ahead. But changes to the meaning of existing content, provide the sources. – robertsky (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't any sources to begin with and Chinese is a language group of languages relating to sino-tibetan languages, which hokkien or cantonese belong to so i dont any reason it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brjewian (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Brjewian Thank you for replying but note that since we are discussing, please refrain from forcing your changes through. Your edit summary is fundamentally wrong reverted unexplained removal of sourced content as you are removing content, not reverting removal aka adding content back. As what robertsky had explained earlier, you need to explain all your changes, especially controversial changes. Do breakup the changes into manageable parts and explain each change. If you continue to revert to your changes, it will be considered disruptive editing and you may be blocked. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Justanothersgwikieditor: there isn't but it seems that you are the one forcing your false changes onto others. why is it wrong for me to remove false unsourced content? It is not required to explain edits here and most other wikipedians do not explain. just because you are not smart enough to explain why any of my edits have anything wrong doesn't give you the right to remove truth content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brjewian (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Brjewian While edit summaries are not compulsory, it is noted that they are useful for other editors to assess the change being done. I saw your edits, assess your changes and find them not satisfactory. Yes, unsourced statements can be removed or changed by any editors. Controversial removal/changes can be challenged. I am challenging said removal / changes. Robertsky had pointed out several controversial changes done by you which are not sourced either. If you wish to change them, please back them up with sources. Please note personal attacks are not welcome in Wikipedia and refrain from doing so. Thanks. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It can be seen wrong given that just 'Chinese' here alone may be miscontrued as the Standard Chinese, that is a relatively modern language, to someone who isn't well-versed in or has read Chinese languages or Varieties of Chinese. Your edit isn't improving the article. It makes it more confusing. – robertsky (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Brjewian : If you insist on your version without a discussion and continue to give a false edit summary, this will be considered as disruptive editing. @Robertsky, diff here. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Samsui Women

--Tan ruru (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Samsui women, also known as hong tou jin' (mandarin for read head scarf for their trademark read head wear.) they worked hard to earn money for their families . Some Samsui women worked as labourers in tin mines and rubber estates , others became domestic helpers/servants in wealthy households. (which was known as ahmah in their time) Most were hired to work as general labourers on construction sites to carry building materials and clear debris. The Samsui women usually began their work at 8 am . The work was physically demanding. They dug soil and carried earth, debris and building materialsin buckets hung in shoulder poles. They aslo built some of thee buildings in singapore. Tan ruru (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)