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 .

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)

Requested move 12 August 2025

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: not moved. This was an interesting read; editors who wanted the move to happen pulled data from Google Scholar, Books, and media sources showing Singaporean Chinese is widely used, and argued it should be treated as the WP:COMMONNAME and even the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But opposers countered with WP:NATURALDIS and WP:CONSISTENCY, with a note of risking confusion with languages and the pattern of other Singapore ethnic group articles. The pageview data also showed only a slim majority for the ethnic group, not the overwhelming dominance we usually need for a primary topic. At the end of the day, the evidence for common usage was strong but not enough to overcome ambiguity and consistency concerns, so the status quo remains unchanged. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Chinese Singaporeans → Singaporean Chinese – The latter is commoner: on Google Scholar, there’re 3,450 results for ‘Chinese Singaporean’ but 11,000 for ‘Singaporean Chinese’, and there’s a similar ratio on Ngrams. (Singaporeans in China are rarely called ‘Chinese Singaporean’ or ‘Singaporean Chinese’, so these results generally refer to the same people.) Docentation (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). TiggerJay (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning opposed, as the nominator has not addressed the question of ambiguity and primary topic status. Three topics are currently listed on the disambiguation page found at the target title, and the nominator has only acknowledged the existence of one of them. As far as I know, at least two million people natively speak Singaporean Chinese. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Also note that the nomination is malformed, since the target name is occupied by non-redirecting content. No notification has been placed on that page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards support, only if it also applies to Malay Singaporeans and Indian Singaporeans as well. Otherwise, it would be entirely inconsistent. Aleain (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. Please see my comment below. It would be a disaster. 2001:8003:9027:DF01:A0A7:A03E:3405:D767 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Singaporean Chinese is bad English translation. It is actually a direct translation of the Chinese phrase "新加坡华人", but in English, "Singaporean Chinese" actually means a Singaporean-born naturalized Chinese citizen (新加坡裔中国人), which has a totally opposite meaning. Chinese and English have different word structures, we can't just translate something "word-to-word" and pretend it is still correct, often it is not the case. I don't care whether "Singaporean Chinese" is a more commonly used word on the Internet, the correct English grammar should prevail. 2001:8003:9027:DF01:A0A7:A03E:3405:D767 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME per Ngrams and usage in multiple sources, such as SCMP, The Straits Times, CNA, and (surprisingly) a study published on the National Institutes of Health website. Wikinav also shows that 55% of views on Singaporean Chinese go to Chinese Singaporeans, so it would appear that this is the WP:PTOPIC as well. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 02:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as the proposed name is against Wikipedia:Article titles#Consistency across simiar articles, which consist of "ethnicity", "nationality". And the real "Singaporean Chinese" is covered in the article Chinese nationals in Singapore. To address the consistency issue, please also go to Talk:Malaysian Chinese#Requested move 18 August 2025, thank you. UU (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Consistency is not the only guideline for titles, and inconsistency is allowed when there are common names used to refer to the article subject (see this section from WP:TITLECON). I have already listed several links from sources which shows that "Singaporean Chinese" refers to Singapore nationals of Chinese descent: the CNA article text clearly refers to the "Singaporean Chinese" in the headline as "a Singaporean of Chinese ethnicity", and in the ST article PM Lawrence Wong also uses the phrase "Singaporean Chinese" with this definition. The onus is on you to counter that and provide us with evidence that "Singaporean Chinese" only refers to Chinese nationals in Singapore, which I could not find any in my research. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 07:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Some comments. There has been surprisingly much opposition to this move, but it is not really grounded in policy and/or concerns possibilities that turn out not to be the case.

• @BarrelProof: asks what the primary topic is; @S5A-0043: observes from Wikinav that it’s this page.
• @Aleain: wants consistency with Malay Singaporeans and Indian Singaporeans. However, there is no general rule at the level of Wikipedia, Southeast Asia, or Singapore: see Singaporean Tamils, Malaysian Chinese.
• The IP user above says that ‘Singaporean Chinese’ is a bad English translation. Given many of the sources cited are written by people whose first language is English, I hardly see how this follows. There is no general rule of English grammar that requires that ‘Singaporean Chinese’ cannot be parsed as ‘Singaporean [ethnic] Chinese’. Docentation (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject China, and WikiProject Singapore have been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Notified relevant WikiProjects for such a high importance topic given the lack of consensus so far. CNC (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Leaning oppose. I had left my comment in the initial challenge to technical request, Special:Permalink/1305543191#UZK. In short, consistency with other similar named articles in Category:Ethnic groups in Singapore, which is iterated in Aleain's remarks. – robertsky (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

As S5A-OO43 points out above, other considerations (e.g. the common name) often take priority over consistency. Docentation (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as structured, per WP:NATURALDIS. Leaving aside the consistency arguments, the proposed title is kind of vague because it can be interpreted as "Singaporean Chinese language" (which itself is ambiguous - see Singaporean Mandarin and Singaporean Hokkien). Unless it can be proven that these Google Scholar results predominantly refer to the ethnic group and not the languages, this will most definitely cause confusion. "Chinese Singaporeans" makes it unambiguously clear what the article is talking about. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the first twenty or thirty results on Google Scholar for me and none of them were for the language. If you would like, I can tabulate these, or you could have a look yourself. This is partially addressed by S5A-OO43 who points out this is the primary topic too. Docentation (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if you could tabulate these results. I did see S5A-0043's comment, but looking into the WikiNav data, the number of views is too low to definitively conclude anything. Of 62 outgoing pageviews from the disambiguation page Singaporean Chinese, there were 34 views for the ethnic group and 28 views for the language.

The next best thing we can do is to look at the pageviews for all the articles listed on the Singaporean Chinese disambiguation page. Looking at the Pageviews tool, the article for the ethnic group (Chinese Singaporeans) gets more views than the Singaporean Mandarin page by about a 2:1 margin, and more views than the Singaporean Hokkien page by a 4:1 margin. The "Chinese Singaporeans" page does have a viewership edge, but it isn't that substantial. From what I've noticed, an article is usually considered a primary topic for a disambiguation page if that article gets at least 80-90% of views out of all the articles listed on the disambiguation page. Here, it gets about 55% of the views out of all the pages listed at the disambiguation page Singaporean Chinese. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think 5,595:2904 pageviews is much more likely than any other single topic and 5,595/10,408 total views is and more likely than all the other topics combined so this seems to fit in the plain meaning of WP:PTOPIC, and am not sure where you got this 80–90% figure from.

At your request, I have included a tabulation as evidence of my claim that ‘Singaporean Chinese’ almost invariably refers to the ethnic group rather than language. I have included the first forty examples from Google Scholar. 39/40 examples use ‘Singaporean Chinese’ [bold] to refer to the ethnic group, and 0/40 use it to refer to the language. (One [italicised] refers to Singaporean teachers of Chinese rather than teachers of Singaporean Chinese.)

1. ‘With Lee Kuan Yew boldly declaring to Singaporean Chinese that…’
2. ‘A 1957 census showed that 39.8 per cent of Singaporean Chinese’
3. ‘There was a sense that for the Singaporean Chinese’
4. ‘The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and body fat percentage (BF%) in Singaporean Chinese, Malays and Indians’
5. ‘'Singaporean Chinese doing business in China'
6. 'Linguistic insecurity and the linguistic ownership of English among Singaporean Chinese'
7. 'Singaporean Chinese children’s…’
8. ‘Singaporean Chinese youth’
9. ‘most Singaporean Chinese are attached to’
10. ‘Singaporean Chinese identities’
11. ‘Singaporean Chinese and Chinese nationals’
12. ‘Singaporean Chinese Youth’s’
13. ‘Singaporean-Chinese managers’
14. ‘topologised groups of Singaporean Chinese’
15. ‘Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians’
16. ‘repertoire of a Singaporean Chinese’
17. ‘study of young Singaporean Chinese children’
18. ‘less than 50 per cent of Singaporean Chinese’
19. ‘practices in Singaporean Chinese women’
20. ‘a distinct Singaporean Chinese identity’
21. ‘cultural features of the Singaporean Chinese'
22. ‘refractive error in Singaporean Chinese children’
23. ‘practices among Singaporean Chinese, Malay, and Indian mothers’
24. ‘models of Singaporean Chinese and Korean business groups’
25. ‘although Singaporean-Chinese may enact’
26. ‘examining Singaporean Chinese’ attitudes’
27. ‘fieldwork with younger Singaporean Chinese’
28. ‘Singaporean Chinese language teachers’’ —note that in this case these are not teachers of Singaporean Chinese, but Singaporean teachers of Chinese
29. ‘a comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese’
30. ‘Singaporean Chinese population’
31. ‘diabetes risk in Singaporean Chinese’
32. ‘which seemed to trouble Singaporean Chinese’
33. ‘waist-to-hip ratio in Singaporean Chinese’
34. ‘body far percentage among Singaporean Chinese, Malay, and Indian’
35. ‘differences between Singaporean Chinese and European populations’
36. ‘obesity loci among Singaporean Chinese, Malay, and Asian-Indian populations’
37. ‘mental disorders in elderly Singaporean Chinese’
38. ‘Singaporean Chinese, in particular, seek to distance…’
39. ‘Singaporean Chinese children’
40. ‘prevalent among Singaporean Chinese school children’

Docentation (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Here’re the first twenty examples from Google Books. Bold (19/21) is as above, and italics (2/21) is for references to Chinese-language literature from Singapore (as opposed to literature specifically in a Singaporean variety of some Chinese language, e.g. Singaporean Mandarin or Singaporean Hokkien).

1. ‘Singaporean Chinese businessmen
2. ‘older Singaporean Chinese speak’
3. ‘Singaporean Chinese have generally’
4. ‘Singaporean Chinese still view’
5. ‘a Singaporean Chinese is like them and not like them’
6. ‘relationships with Singaporean Chinese’
7. ‘Singaporean Chinese children’
8. ‘Singaporean-Chinese compared with mainland Chinese’
9. ‘Singaporean Chinese businessmen’
10. ‘Singaporean Chinese instrumentalists’
11. ‘the Singaporean Chinese community’
12. ‘Singaporean Chinese demographic’
13. ‘Singaporean Chinese culture’
14. ‘Singaporean Chinese investing’
15. ‘Singaporean Chinese, identifying as…’
16. ‘Singaporean Chinese literature [i.e. Chinese-language literature from Singapore, rather than literature in a Singaporean variety of Chinese specifically]…to educate Singaporean Chinese’
17. ‘influence efforts targeting Singaporean Chinese’
18. ‘Singaporean (Chinese)’ (as above: Chinese-language literature from Singapore, rather than literature in a Singaporean variety of Chinese specifically)
19. ‘the Chineseness of the Singaporean Chinese’
20. ‘“Chineseness” among Singaporean Chinese of different generations’

Docentation (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for collating these. I'm still not convinced that a 55% viewership percentage amounts to a clear primary topic - it certainly has more views than any other page listed at Singaporean Chinese (disambiguation) but not by much. The 80-90% figure is a guideline that we typically use to ascertain that something is a clear primary topic (i.e. a supermajority of people are clearly looking for that one topic). Whereas since this article gets only 55% of the views out of all the articles listed at Singaporean Chinese (disambiguation), that means 45% of people are looking for something other than this article. Nonetheless, the Google Books results are convincing enough that I should strike my oppose, even if I'm not supporting the RM yet. Epicgenius (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see the value in deliberately making this title more ambiguous. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  The point is to use the wp:common name, not to make it more ambiguous (and see the exchange above: hardly anyone uses ‘Singaporean Chinese’ to refer to the language). Docentation (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Choosing the most common name is not the only goal of choosing a Wikipedia article title. Other considerations exist. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  The wp:common name may indeed not be best by reason of other considerations. But arguing so would involve acknowledging and balancing considerations in favour and against; the comment above ignores the actual considerations in favour, substitutes considerations against (the purported increase in ambiguity), and does not actually help to determine whether any meaningful problem of ambiguity arises. Docentation (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that Singaporean Chinese is currently a disambiguation page means by definition that a meaningful problem of ambiguity arises. You can't just wish away the status quo dating back to 2006 with a wave of your hand. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps I should have said decisive rather than meaningful. The plain meaning of WP:QUALIFIER is that ambiguity is not decisive if one referent is the wp:primary topic, in which case, as you know perfectly well, a hatnote will suffice. (Thus Malaysian Chinese does perfectly well with a hatnote to Malaysian Mandarin.) Docentation (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:ENGVAR. Cf. British Chinese. —  AjaxSmack  18:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Wikinav data for Singaporean Chinese does not show that the term is substantially more likely to refer to Chinese Singaporeans than all other topics combined. Furthermore, the Wikinav data for the Chinese Singaporeans article shows that Singaporean Chinese barely registers as a source of traffic (less than a percent of incoming traffic). That would suggest that Singaporean Chinese is neither the primary topic nor the common name. Tomiĉo (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  A wp: primary topic need only be substantially more likely to be the target than any individual other topic; comparing all other topics combined, the primary topic need only be more likely, not highly or substantially so. See also pageviews, and clear evidence from Google Books and Google Scholar that the ethnic group is the primary topic. As for the wp:common name, that is surely to be addressed by prevalence in sources rather than from Wikinav. Docentation (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2025 (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.