Talk:Founding years of modern Singapore

Proposed merge of Founding of modern Singapore with Founding of modern Singapore and 1819 Singapore Treaty

Founding of modern Singapore and its early colonial period was moved from Founding of modern Singapore with the rationale that "moved page to better reflect the scope of the article extends much beyond what is normally considered as the founding of modern singapore by the government and the press". However, the content at both titles are similar to each other. I think this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and I suggest a merge and revert back to the previous title. – robertsky (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles under discussions are now Founding of modern Singapore and Founding of modern Singapore and 1819 Singapore Treaty. – robertsky (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Magnet larry, as the mover of the article. – robertsky (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The original article is too broad about the founding of modern Singapore, which, by the government's definition and what is referred to by the press and many others, is about one particular historical moment and event. And that's why there were all these many commemoration events about it just a few years ago.

But the original article covers the pre-colonial time, the founding of modern singapore, the economic growth after 6 Feb 1819, and then further.

It is just different from what is generally referred to as "the founding of modern Singapore". An article titled as "Founding of modern Singapore", I think, should perhaps center around the founding of modern Singapore.

Shouldn't an article about the entire general period, rather than focusing on the founding of modern singapore, like the original article, have its own place? Magnet larry (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No. We should not just follow what the government pushes out (see WP:OFFICIAL and WP:PROPAGANDA), but take all sources into consideration and work out the article. The precolonial history section is there to set a context or continuity to the time period. If there is a must, it should be trimmed or reduced accordingly. The period in between Raffles' first steps and being a Straits Settlement is short, there's no definitive term for this period, and nests nicely in here as it was an immediate period of time when the status of being a (fledgling) British colony was threatened by the power plays between the British and Dutch powers. – robertsky (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not just what the government says. When one googles "founding of modern Singapore", the press and many also refer to it as such.

And trimming the original article down to what is usually referred to as the founding of modern Singapore would mean losing an article about the general period of that time. Magnet larry (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

And when I take a look at America, there is a wiki article about History of the United States (1776–1789), and then, there are separate wiki articles about American Revolution and Treaty of Paris (1783). And they overlap, which is of course very natural. These articles talk about the things that happened in the same period. It is bound to overlap, but each of them focuses on different things.

And I think it should be the same for Singapore. There should be an article about the general period of that time. And then there should be separate articles with different focuses on different things about that time.

The original article serves it well to function as an article that gives a general history of that time about Singapore. But then there should also be separate articles, focusing on things about that period. Magnet larry (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

For the original article, perhaps we can follow the example of the article about America and change its name to "History of Singapore (1819–1826)". That way, it will be very clear that the article is about the general history of that time but not about one specific event. Magnet larry (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I just changed the intro of the original Founding article back to what it was on 5 October 2022.

I had changed the intro because I wanted people to be aware what the phrase "founding of modern Singapore" is usually referred to in the press. Perhaps I'd made things worse.

Now that is back to the original intro. Perhaps it's clearer that original article is more about the general history. Magnet larry (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been just reading the page that is cited as the reason to merge the new Founding article back to the original one, namely WP:REDUNDANTFORK. And there is this section of that page I think is relevant here, and that is the section about Related articles, WP:RELART, which says the following:

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another...Another example is where two articles cover the same topic, but are clearly directed at different audiences...Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term.

I am no wikipedia expert, but I think the above passage helps explain pretty well about the reason of what I am trying to do. Also, what this passage seems to be saying is that it is okay to have two articles with a lot of overlap if they are related.

And so, again, I suggest the name of the original article, which is much broader in scope, be changed to something else, like "History of Singapore (1819–1826)", instead of merging the two. Magnet larry (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Singapore has been notified. – robertsky (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It may be worth merging some Founding of modern Singapore into 1819 Singapore Treaty instead. CMD (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is reasonable as well. – robertsky (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The Founding article was created first, but given it's all Magnet larry's work either way I don't think the merge direction matters. CMD (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not intend to create the 1819 Singapore Treaty article at first. It was a redirect that I bumped into.

But then I thought that some may only need to know about the treaty and its terms, and other stuff like the commemoration is not about the treaty itself, and they should not be in the same article. Like, there is an article about Treaty of Waitangi and then another article about Waitangi Day. That's why I started working on the redirect. Magnet larry (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on either article that highlights a clearly separate topic. CMD (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I do admit writing a very long article about the treaty has been a bit challenging for me. First, I am not a historian or a lawyer who can easily write a dozen of pages just about the treaty itself. And also, there are only very limited reliable resources out there. Like, I cannot even find the full text of the treaty online, and I would love to see the full text.

But then, it's not only for New Zealand, and when I look at America or Hong Kong, they all have separate wiki articles focusing on just their treaties, Treaty of Paris (1783) and Sino-British Joint Declaration

And then, they all have separate wiki articles about the anniversaries, like Independence Day (United States) and HKSAR Establishment Day

Shouldn't it be the same for Singapore? Shouldn't there be an article just about the 1819 Treaty and another one about that historical date and event and its commemoration? Magnet larry (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to treat different situations as the same. Even if you wanted to, the Singaporean equivalent to your examples would be National Day (Singapore). There is no Treaty of Paris day or Sino-British Joint Declaration day. CMD (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, there is no Sino-British Joint Declaration Day, but there is now National Day (1st Oct) for Hong Kong, and that is very different from Establishment Day (1st July). And there is a separate article focusing on the event of Handover of Hong Kong and another article focusing on the treaty of Sino-British Joint Declaration.

It is good to have separate articles with one focusing on the event of Singapore's modern founding, the commemoration, and the debate around it, and with one focusing only the 1819 treaty.

I understand that the new Founding article and the 1819 treaty articles that I have been creating might be shorter in comparison with the original article, but I think it is good to have separate articles. And the advantage for separate articles has become more and more obvious to me in past few days.

What happened was when I searched "Singapore Treaty" in wiki, it took me to a redirect Singapore Treaty which then automatically took me to Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks.

What's more. This article 1819 in Singapore, all about Singapore in 1819, before I changed it yesterday, it simply put down "Singapore Treaty" as an internal link, which of course took me to the Singapore Treaty about trademarks rather than anything about 6 Feb 1819, not even the original Founding article.

And also, if I google "Singapore Treaty", the results are all about the trademark treaty and nothing about the founding of modern Singapore or 6 Feb 1819 or debate or commemoration.

So, apparently, there are two different treaties known as "Singapore Treaty". The one commonly known in Singapore is about the 1819 treaty, but for people outside Singapore, it is more about trademarks.

If we go back to before where everything was in one place, of course it will be super convenient, but I think it also risks causing confusion. And the fact that a wiki article which was supposed to be all about 1819 in Singapore would direct people to a treaty in the 21st century about trademarks proves the need for separate articles. Magnet larry (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is all an argument for a page on the treaty, not for having two pages on the treaty, which is the current situation. They're WP:CFORKs of each other. CMD (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

From the cited wiki page WP:CFORK as the reason for merging, I think there is a section that is relevant here, and that is the section about Related Articles, WP:RELART, which says the following:

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another...Another example is where two articles cover the same topic, but are clearly directed at different audiences...Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term.

Again, I am no wikipedia expert, but I think the above passage explains it well about the rationale of what I am trying to do. Also, what this passage seems to be saying is that it is okay to have two articles with a lot of overlap if they are related. And it is also okay to have two different wiki articles covering the same topic.

Moreover, an article about the 1819 treaty is not the same as an article about the event of the founding of modern Singapore and the related commemoration and debate even though the two topics are highly related, and it can even be said that one is part of another.

Just like, the Treaty of Paris (1783) is related to and part of but not the same as the event of American Revolution, and the treaty of Sino-British Joint Declaration is related to and part of but not the same as the Handover of Hong Kong.

And one more example, for Macau, the treaty of Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration is related to and part of but not the same as the Transfer of sovereignty over Macau

And same here, the 1819 treaty is not the same topic as the founding of modern Singapore. Magnet larry (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It is rarely okay to have two articles on the same topic, those are classic examples of WP:CFORKS. That caveat exists specifically for "different audiences", and is meant to allow for articles like Introduction to general relativity, which neither of these articles are. Your examples, while different from your previous ones, still do not seem to hold. There is nothing in the text of these articles that suggests such a distinction exists. Furthermore, the sources used in the article treat the two as the same event. CMD (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If the 1819 treaty should be deemed as the same topic as the founding of modern singapore, then, the treaty of Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration would equally be the same topic as the Transfer of sovereignty over Macau. But clearly, they are not the same topic.

Also, when people argue or talk about "the founding of modern singapore", they are not referring to "the 1819 treaty". They are not synonyms.

And even for the sources, they treat the two differently. For example, from the Singapore Infopedia of the National Library Board, they have these two articles:

1819 Singapore Treaty

https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2014-05-16_133354.html

Stamford Raffles’s landing in Singapore

https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_131_2005-01-03.html

The treaty and the founding are two different things. Magnet larry (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That analogy is a poor one, the two articles you mention cover topics separated by over a decade. As for the linked sources, Stamford Raffles' landing in Singapore was not the founding of modern Singapore. Reading both, it is clear that they treat the treaty signing as the founding of modern Singapore. "On 6 February 1819, Stamford Raffles, Temenggong Abdu’r Rahman and Sultan Hussein Shah of Johor signed a treaty...It marked the birth of Singapore as a British settlement.", "6 Feb 1819: The Singapore Treaty is signed between Raffles, the Sultan and the Temenggong...This date is recognised as the official founding of Singapore." CMD (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Timing is not at issue here. Without signing the Joint Declaration, there would be no transfer of sovereignty. The two things were interrelated.

And it shows even more that signing a treaty is a very different thing from having the treaty implemented or executed or becoming effective.

It is also true that an article talking about the signing is not the same as an article talking about the different terms and conditions of the treaty.

Just because two things happened on the same day, it does not mean they are the same thing. Magnet larry (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Temporal correlation doesn't make things the same/majorly overlapping, it's the sources which treat it as the same thing which do. CMD (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If the sources treated them the same, they would not need to have two separate articles, one about the treaty and the other one about the story of the founding. And the two references are from the same source, namely Singapore Infopedia. Magnet larry (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

But to save time, I just merged and moved most of the stuff across from the treaty article, and I also changed the name of the Founding article so that it is clear what the article is about. Magnet larry (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have moved back the article as reverting an undiscussed move, the titles under discussion are now Founding of modern Singapore and Founding of modern Singapore and 1819 Singapore Treaty, which the latter was moved by Magnet larry. There are 300+ links to what's supposedly a key article that remained unresolved after the previous move. – robertsky (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

But wouldn't the above discussion so far show it even more that the scope of the original article is beyond what is usually referred to as "the founding of modern singapore"?

Also, didn't the links get redirected just fine? Magnet larry (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No. There is too much focus on the treaty in the discussion above and neglected the other indelible aspect of foundation of modern Singapore, the Jackson Plan, which falls in this period. Of time.

And no, not after your content fork.

Lastly, read WP:AND. – robertsky (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Origin" section of the cited wiki article Jackson Plan says, "Sir Stamford Raffles founded the colony in 1819". Clearly, when most people say "the founding", they refer to the story of 1819 but not really beyond.

Anyway, to save everyone's time and energy, I will be moving content over and merging the two articles in the next few days. Magnet larry (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The merge move was done with no consensus and I reverted the merge. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I read through the discussion and here are my thoughts on the content of the articles. For the history of founding of modern Singapore, it should have a summarised early history of pre Pre-colonial Singapore, the arrival of Raffles, the treaty, the planning of modern Singapore town (aka the Jackson Plan) and up to 1826 when Singapore becomes part of the Straits Settlements.

For the treaty, as a legal agreement, between the various parties, I would restrict the content to a summarised content of the situation in Singapore at that time, arrival of Raffles and the signing and content of the treaty. Subsequent celebrations of the treaty signing should be included.

With this content layout, I would suggest the titles of the articles be "Foundation years of modern Singapore" of something to this aspect. We already have Early history of Singapore which covers till 1819, and Singapore in the Straits Settlements from 1826 onwards and so forth. While the current article "Founding of modern Singapore", the title is a bit ambiguous and "Foundation years" will give a precise name to the time period when Raffles gave instructions for the planning of the Town till the Jackson Plan is completed and construction starts.

If this is acceptable to most parties, forming a consensus, I will make the page move requests for both articles, "Founding of modern Singapore" to "Foundation years of modern Singapore" and "Founding of modern Singapore and 1819 Singapore Treaty" to "Singapore Treaty" (assuming common name, if not then "1819 Singapore Treaty").

Pinging all involved editors, @Magnet larry@Robertsky@Chipmunkdavis Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

+1. no issues with the proposed changes. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Foundation years" is an unusual turn of phrase. Is that from somewhere? At any rate, whatever the titles, I have no strong feelings on the overall structure so long as multiple articles aren't covering the same topic. CMD (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I admit it does sounds weird now and sounds like a textbook title which I am not lifting from any books! I am okay to settle with "Founding years of modern Singapore" as an alternative. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am okay about renaming the original article as "Founding years" or another name that is clearer in reflecting the broad scope of the article.

As for resurrecting the article of "Founding of modern Singapore and 1819 Singapore Treaty" and renaming it, I still think that each of these two things should have its own article because the "founding of modern Singapore" and the "1819 Singapore Treaty" are two related but different things. When people celebrate or argue or talk about "the founding of modern Singapore", they do not normally refer to the terms and conditions of the treaty. Similarly, when people utter the words "the Singapore Treaty", they are being specific and don't necessarily refer to the Dutch and British competition background and the story of the landing of Sir Raffles in 1819 and all that.

And so, I think the article should be reverted back to what it was on 5 Feb 2023, and the separate article named "1819 Singapore Treaty" should also be resurrected, which it's now a redirect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1819_Singapore_Treaty&redirect=no

But that's only my two cents. Magnet larry (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)