Jump to content

Talk:Indian Singaporeans

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

Photographs of Indians in Singapore

[edit]

This article could do with a few photographs of Indians from different cultural backgrounds – perhaps Singaporean Indians who trace their ancestry to different parts of India, or Indians of different religions – to illustrate it. Does anyone have any that can be used? Cheers, Jacklee 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic group & race

[edit]

The article currently states -

"The Singapore Department of Statistics defines ‘Indians’ as both a ’race’ and ethnic group, comprising “persons of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan origin, such as Tamils, Malayalis, Punjabis, Bengalis, Singhalese, etc.” [1] The term 'Indian' therefore refers broadly to the Indian subcontinent, rather than the Republic of India."

According to the Singstat website, ethnic group and race seem to be interchangeable:

"Ethnic/Dialect Group - Ethnic group refers to a person's race as declared by that person. The population is classified into the following four categories:
Chinese - This refers to persons of Chinese origin such as Hokkiens, Teochews, Cantonese, Hakkas, Hainanese, Hockchias, Foochows, Henghuas, Shanghainese etc.
Malays - This refers to persons of Malay or Indonesian origin, such as Javanese, Boyanese, Bugis etc.
Indians - This refers to persons of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan origin such as Tamils, Malayalis, Punjabis, Bengalis, Singhalese etc.
Other Ethnic Group - This comprises all persons other than Chinese, Malays and Indians. They include Eurasians, Caucasians, Arabs, Japanese etc." [3]

This would confirm the existence of a single concept, where race is the dominant term, being used for all official purposes, and ethnic group a rarely-used synonym. As it stands, the article leads to the interpretation that Singstat make a distinction between the two terms. Rather than simply deleting the statement, I propose to rephrase it such as to underline the absence of distinction. JREL (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm still not entirely happy with the formulation; maybe you can help? JREL (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore has one of world's largest overseas Indian populations?

[edit]

The introductory paragraph of the article currently reads: "While they [Indians] are the smallest of the city-state's three main 'races', among cities, Singapore has the one of the world's largest overseas Indian populations." Can this be right? There must be a larger overseas Indian population in countries like the UK and USA by virtue of the larger overall population in those countries. Or does Singapore have one of the world's largest overseas Indian populations relative to the population of the country as a whole? Some clarification of this would be most welcome. Cheers, Jacklee 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read the sentence in the introductory paragraph set out above, and realized that it clams that as a city rather than as a country, Singapore has one of the world's largest overseas Indian populations. Lower down, in the subsection "Contemporary population size", it is stated that "Singapore has one of the largest overseas Indian population among cities. Only London and Durban have more overseas Indians in terms of both absolute and relative numbers." However, there seem to be a few problems with this statement:

  • The article "Overseas Indian population" states that Singapore in ranked fourth and not third in terms of number of Indians in the population, behind London, Durban and New York City.
  • The references to the http://www.singstat.gov.sg website in footnotes 14, 15 and 16 no longer work, and need updating.
  • It does not seem accurate to say that "[o]nly London and Durban have more overseas Indians in terms of... relative numbers". Again, according to the article "Overseas Indian population", 8.8% of the population of Singapore as a city is Indian. However, 75% of the population of Port Louis in Mauritius is Indian, no doubt because Port Louis has a much smaller overall population. But doesn't this mean that Port Louis has more overseas Indians than Singapore in "relative numbers"?

Cheers, Jacklee 00:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - thanks for your attention to / interest in this article. Hope this clarifies things a bit: while NYC may have a larger absolute number of ethnic Indian residents, Singapore seems to have a higher percentage. Conversely, Port Louis may have a higher percentage of ethnic Indians, but Singapore has a higher absolute number. The point of the line - "Singapore has one of the largest overseas Indian population among cities. Only London and Durban have more overseas Indians in terms of both absolute and relative numbers" - is that when we look at the size of overseas Indian communities in cities around the world - in terms of *BOTH* absolute AND relative numbers - only London and Durban have more Indians than Singapore on both counts. I'm afraid I'm not sure how to put it more clearly. To me it seems a good / valid way to capture both measures of size. of course, we could also / alternatively rank Singapore by each measure individually, but that seemed too fussy / detailed to me for this entry, especially since the info is already carried on other Wiki pages.

Re: links no longer working - am not free to look into this right now, but hope to get round to it at some point unless someone can do it first! ishouldbeworking

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

[edit]

Wiki Raja 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board

[edit]

Although the article is well-referenced, I am concerned that it is not written in summary style. Here is how I think the article should be structured:

  • A short Etymology section, discussing the definition of "Indian" (already present).
  • A long History section, detailing the migration of Indians to Singapore (can be created by merging several existing sections).
  • A short Demographics section, containing various statistics about Indians in Singapore, such as languages, religion, education and income (some information is already included).
  • A long Culture section, detailing Singaporean Indian culture, such as cuisine, music and literature (some information is already included).
  • A short Institutions section, discussing various Singaporean Indian institutions, such as self-help groups (more information is needed).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm one of the main contributors to this article so far. I confess I've not been very good at logging in each time I edit, or noting the changes in the edit summary - sorry if this makes things more difficult for other editors. J.L.W.S - I'm not a very active Wikipedian, but to the extent that I think I understand the issue of 'summary style', I do share your sentiments. One of my own concerns about the article is its length. I was hoping some kind soul with more experience could step in at this point and help to clean up and wikify the piece, but failing that, i have had another go. I think J.L.W.S.'s proposed structure makes sense, and have attemped to work towards that in recent edits. I have also created new pages to move some content there (e.g. History of Indians in Singapore), so that this page remains a summary. Am still in the process of doing this. Meanwhile would appreciate any further comments or ideas. I'm pleasantly surprised that Jackless thinks the article is a potential GA, and I'm hoping that with some new contributors, we could have a new Singapore GA to add to the list before too long. Ishouldbeworking (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:SRajaratnam smiling.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research in definition

[edit]

Tiger7253, Would you be able to find a source for this edit? The content is informative but it would still require a source per WP:NOR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: Thanks for the reminder. I've added two sources for now. The first one details non-"Singaporean Indians" having 'Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan' classifications on their pink IC cards, and the second one talks about Sindhis and Sikhs from West Punjab. I'll scour the interwebs for more sources later today. Tiger7253 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiger7253: Thank you for searching. For ethnicity related stuff though, we generally use scholarly sources as they are considered "peer reviewed". Middle ground is considered an WP:SPS due to it being more of a user contributed platform. In addition, the citation would need to make the supported text clear (including the relationship with the previous sentence/context). In this case for example, both the citations don't really support that. You can take your time to search. I will search as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I would suggest that the SRS content be removed. The primary tenet of Wikipedia is WP:NOR and is policy. Unless there are reliable sources to back up content, it is original research. If such sources can be found, it is only then that the content can be added. Please don't use articles to shoehorn personal opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being I have moved it here.
"This however does not confer the term 'Singaporean Indian' on recent immigrants or foreigners from countries in the Indian subcontinent outside the Republic of India proper (who are otherwise considered Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Sri Lankan in the modern-day context).[1] The Singaporean Indian community was established during the colonial period, and the local definition of 'Indian' therefore corresponds with the pre-1947 definition prior to the partition of India, encompassing any ethno-linguistic group within the local Indian population that can trace their heritage back to the territories held by undivided India and Sri Lanka before 1947. Three such communities include the Sindhi Hindus, who trace their roots to Sindh, and the Punjabi Sikhs, many of whom trace their roots to West Punjab,[2] both of which now fall within the country of Pakistan, and the Sri Lankan Tamils."

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
This needs better references and I will try searching for some myself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942: Thanks for that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Tamils

[edit]

There is a related AFD about an article which apparently copied some content from this article. Inviting more opinions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing and content removal

[edit]

@Lemongirl942: and @Iryna Harpy: An editor that goes by the name A.R.Nayudu has constantly made disruptive edits that I have had to revert, time and time again. The nature of the edits appears to be chauvinistic, geared towards ethnic and linguistic sentiments. For example, this user removed 'Hindi' from the infobox even though Hindi is listed in the PDF document of the official Singapore government census that has been well-referenced all over this article. This user has also been making other unexplained removals - the latest of which was to remove 'Malayalee' from a sentence with no explanation whatsoever, and remove 'Holi' from the list of minor, non-official Indian festivals celebrated in Singapore. It is getting tiring to constantly revert edits that are pointlessly chauvinistic, and I would appreciate your help in the matter because I am not an admin and do not have the sufficient privileges required to tackle such users. Thanks. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reported it to WP:AIV as the editor has received enough warnings. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, @Tiger7253:, I understand you are frustrated, but using a section title such as "chauvinism" doesn't really help. In general, section titles need to be neutral on article talk page. I have taken the liberty to change it. Thank you for keeping a watch on this page though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2017 edits

[edit]

There were a bunch of edits in Feb 2017. I have reverted to the statusquo. Edits such as this seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, although there might be possible original research. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiger7253:I understand that you had previously reverted unsourced additions of various religions, but this is not required. Footnotes such as these need sources too, and generally we do not put them in as they are part of the article. This article is on my watchlist, so I can revert any unsourced additions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were sourced, it is WP:UNDUE and editorializing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@lemongirl942 @tiger7253 guys I honestly don't get it, you guys are confusing me (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indian Singaporeans. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian Singaporeans. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Ethno-linguistic profile

[edit]

@Tiger7253: Care to share the census detail you just referred to? I'm very interested in looking at it myself for future reference. Until then it's surprising that not one of the Indian Muslims of Singapore is of Sindh or Punjab descent. Secondly, are you aware that Sindh and Punjab regions span both sides of the border? That prior to Partition of India, many of the Sikhs and Hindus on the India side used to reside on the Pakistan side? And the same for the many Muslims who migrated into Pakistan during partition, having previously lived on the India side.

You seem to be looking at it purely from a 21st century angle. The table already includes Punjab and Sindh under "ancestral homes", if you bother to click it you'll see those articles' map and lede section clearly state they encompass both sides. So your comment "..nor do they have anything to do with Pakistan, heritage-wise." in the revert seems awfully misplaced. If you're correct then the article is currently wrong, and shouldn't include Punjab and Sindh under "ancestral home" since it seems to contradict you.

According to Indian_Singaporeans#Religions itself, 21.7% of Indian Singaporeans are Muslim. Please give me a breakdown of their ethnic composition. DA1 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DA1: Hi, apologies for the late reply, as I don't come on Wikipedia that often anymore.
You need to understand that Singapore's demographics cannot be seen in light of what happens in the West with 'Desi' populations. Mass subcontinental immigration to the West is a relatively recent phenomenon, and ramped up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, right when countries like the US and Australia were dismantling regulations and exclusionary acts (eg: White Australia Policy) that kept non-White immigrants out. At this point, India and Pakistan were already distinct nations, with clear delineations between the 'Indian' and 'Pakistani' identities. This is why in the States, for example, you've got 'Indian Americans', and 'Pakistani Americans'.
However, Singapore (and Malaysia, for that matter) are different cases. These places were governed by the same colonial empire that governed India, and many, many Indians were either brought over as indentured labourers/came of their own free will centuries ago - we're talking late 1700s, early 1800s. This is information that is available on this page, if you're interested in reading the whole thing. These dynamics also apply to ethnic Indian populations in countries like the Mauritius, Fiji, Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname, and so on.
The Indian population was established centuries before India and Pakistan even existed as sovereign states. So with regards to you saying that I'm looking at things from a presentist standpoint - I am not. Indian Singaporeans of Punjabi and Sindhi descent literally have nothing to do with Pakistan, and for that matter, nothing to do with India, from a political standpoint. This would be akin to saying that Australians of Anglo descent are politically affiliated to England. They are not.
This is also why Ceylonese Tamils, in the Singaporean context, are referred to as 'Indians' - Sri Lanka did not exist as a sovereign state at the point where immigration began. The same goes for the Sinhalese. Our census documents this - scroll to Page 49.
Moving on: Indian Singaporeans of Punjabi and Sindhi descent simply trace their lineage back to regions of Punjab and Sindh. Because these regions now span two different countries, Pakistan is included in the map. This does not mean that they have anything to do with nation-states that came into being centuries after Singapore started becoming populated by people from these regions, nor are their identities ascertained by geopolitical changes that happened centuries after their demographic establishment.
I hope I am making sense. I understand it can be hard for people to fully grasp different societal contexts, but I am more than happy to inform others about it. Hailing from these regions does not make one 'Pakistani' any more than it would make a White American 'British' or 'Irish'.
As for your enquiry about Indian Muslims: The vast majority of them are Tamil. As for Punjabis, they are predominantly Sikh, and virtually all Sindhis are Hindus. Yes, there may or may not be a very minute minority of Punjabis who follow the religion of Islam, but in the Singaporean context, they come under the 'Indian' umbrella. They would not be 'Pakistani', and we don't have a 'Pakistani Singaporean' demographic for the reasons I've mentioned above. Pakistanis in Singapore are mostly foreigners/expatriates who came over after Singapore's establishment as a sovereign state, and they are distinct from the native 'Singaporean Indian' populace. Tiger7253 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiger7253: In summary: WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Perhaps the best course of action for the article: Remove any controversy over philosophical or literal notions of nation states pre and post independence, and WP:OR claims of specific religion ascribed to those ethnicities, by removing the column outright. You also mention Sindhis in Singapore being specifically Hindu and come under the "Indian umbrella", however, so would Pakistanis and Sri Lankans and others. Even a non-Indian national falls under the "Indian umbrella" in Singapore ethnically. Nonetheless, that entire Religion column currently is original research and is better off removed until someone can provide a concrete WP:CITATION to back it up. DA1 (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DA1: Check out the 'Definitions' section of the article: "The Singapore Department of Statistics defines 'Indians' as a 'race' (or 'ethnic group'), comprising "persons of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan origin such as Tamils, Malayalis, Punjabis, Bengalis, Sinhalese etc."[5][6]"
This refers to Singaporean Indians who trace their lineage back to the constituent countries of the Indian subcontinent as a whole, or 'India'. This definition has absolutely nothing to do with subcontinental expatriates, who aren't 'Singaporean Indians', and who otherwise identify under the Pakistani/Sri Lankan/Bangladeshi moniker with regards to their nationality. So, no: A non-Indian national does not fall under the "Indian umbrella" in Singapore ethnically. The "Indian umbrella" is what Singaporeans of subcontinental descent identify under, it is a distinct categorisation from the modern and current-day terms that expatriates use - and this is not really OR.
However, I will agree that the column that tackles 'religion' is OR, so you can go ahead and delete that if you wish. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an expatriate become a citizen of Singapore and his children continue to be citizens, then they surely aren't simply considered their respective national expatriates, but counted as Indian Singaporeans. This is in line with the official definition of "Indian Singaporean" which encompasses peoples of Pakistani, Bengali and Sri Lankan descent. Nonetheless, my main issue was the Religion column because it is 'possible' that individuals from other religions exist besides the ones listed and it's also possible for individuals to convert to Christianity, etc after coming to Singapore. But there exists no citations to back up any assertions. I'm glad we can agree that it can be removed due to lack of sourcing and over-reliance on anecdotes. DA1 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Singaporeans&oldid=1207710671"