Talk:Majulah Singapura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Majulah Singapura has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 23, 2007.
November 12, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Majulah Singapura is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Tamil script

Is there anyone able to input the tamil script, or has a clear copy of the script for me to type in? The link provided is too blured for me to do the above task.--Huaiwei 16:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a typo in the first word of the second line of the Tamil version. I am not able to type in Tamil script. --Mssnlayam 13:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credits

I see no reason to keep the "credits" section, they are credits for the MP3 file that is linked to the page, in fact, the link directs you to ... the credits page (which is basically just copypasted onto wikipedia). If you feel the credits should be there, you can put them back (that's what Wikipedia's all about!), but please state your reasons on this talk page too. --Canuckguy 04:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

But I tought they are the credits for the folks involved in the anthem's rearragement, and in the production of the official versions (the various mp3 files)? Perhaps it may be repackaged and restored to avoid copyvio issues, but some of those names listed are notable ones which already have articles here.--Huaiwei 05:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Then maybe if you want to restore the credits, you can mention that (along the lines of: "These people were instrumental [pardon the pun :) ] in the rearranging of the amthem"), and perhaps not every credit is needed, I believe one or two aren't germain to the issue.
And, if they do have Wikipedia links, perhaps link to them. I want to leave this to you, rather than doing that myself, since you seem to be more knoledgeable on that than I. --Canuckguy 07:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] GA Review

1. Well written: a few infelicities which were easily removed. Pass. 2. Factually Accurate/Verifiable: Not many sources, undoubted authorities on the subject. Pass. 3. Broad in coverage: Short, but I suppose it's a rather small subject. Pass. 4. Neutral: The last section dogmatically repeats the government regulations.... as well it should. =P Pass. 5. Stable: Stable enough. Pass. 6. Images: More importantly in this case, Audio. Pass.

Adam Cuerden talk 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to the article

At the request of other editors (see "Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Majulah Singapura needs a section about use of anthem and its place in Singaporean culture"), I've added more information to the article. I could do with help with the following:

  • A Straits Times news article entitled "Majulah Singapura has been sung patriotically for 32 years" which is reproduced at http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/independence/ref/zanthem.html is supposedly dated 9 March 1990, but this seems to be wrong as the article refers to another article dated 22 July. I suspect that the articles were published some time in 1991. Would someone with access to Factiva try to locate these articles?
  • The web page http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/independence/ref/zanthem2.html includes an intriguing link at the bottom to an article entitled "5 or 6 anthems in the old days". Unfortunately, the link is dead. Again, would someone try to locate this article and any other information about national anthems prior to "Majulah Singapura"?
  • A source states that the national anthem was named after the motto that was part of the coat of arms of the City of Singapore that was displayed in the Victoria Theatre. I seem to recall the coat of arms on a wall of the second floor landing just outside the entrance to the stall seats of the theatre. Would someone please photograph it for inclusion in the article?
  • Should the official Mandarin and Tamil translations of the national anthem be included in the "Lyrics" section?
  • Please try and find a reference for this sentence in the "Salutes" section: "Persons in military or paramilitary uniforms generally to don their head dress and salute on the first note of the anthem, holding the salute till the last note."
  • I remember that Singaporeans were encouraged by the Government to hold clenched fists to their hearts when singing the national anthem or taking the national pledge some time in the 1990s or 2000s. Can anyone provide an accurate date and reference for this?
  • Can anyone think of any other uses of the national anthem? Was the anthem ever played in cinemas before films were screened? I know it was (and in some cases still is) played at the end of broadcasting hours on TV and radio; is or was it also played at the start?

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How did a 5.8 kB article suddenly quintuple in size to 30 kB? The optimal length for GAs is 15-20 kB. Nevertheless, you have done a great job, Jacklee! With regards to your requests for assistance (and several points I have to make):

  • Not everyone is as interested in legal details as you (a lawyer) are. Trim the "Guidelines for use" section, please.
  • I don't think we should mention the parody lyrics that are sometimes sung in Singaporean schools. Here they are, for your amusement: "Mari kita ya So-and-so跳楼自杀变成roti prata! Hallelujah!他的妈妈是个gorilla!"
  • The Wayback Machine does not have an archived copy of "5 or 6 anthems in the old days".
  • Any SGpedian who is willing to take a photo of the Coat of Arms at the Victoria Theatre (which entails dealing with the security guards there) deserves an award for boldness (an euphism for recklessness) and support of the anti-fair use brigade.
  • Are the Mandarin and Tamil translations well known? Can you find a highly reliable source for them? As this is the English Wikipedia, others may oppose the inclusion of the Mandarin and Tamil translations, but I am all for having them in the article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, J.L.W.S. My responses:
  • OK, will see how I can trim the "Guidelines for use" section, though I think it is interesting and pertinent for readers to note that the national anthem is actually protected by law! Not many people know this.
  • Never heard the parody before! :-)
  • I don't see why it should be difficult to take a photograph of the City of Singapore coat of arms in Victoria Theatre. It is a public place, after all.
  • There are official Mandarin and Tamil translations, so I thought there shouldn't be any objection to including them in the article. However, looking at the article's history I realize that these translations were in fact originally in the article but were later taken out by Rifleman 82 on 27 November, so perhaps there needs to be a discussion as to whether they should be in the article in the first place.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No, don't think non-English language text should be here unless it is necessary to expound on a point. I think it's already on wikisource. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to have links to Wikisource, so we don't get a cluttered article that is full of lyrics. The format of the lyrics style is what I have done with other national anthem featured articles I wrote. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of including the official Mandarin and Tamil translations of the lyrics in the article, add a link to said translations in the "External links" section. You could also add a sentence about the translations in the "Lyrics" section, using a link to the official translations as a reference. If the translated lyrics meet Wikisource's criteria for inclusion, transwiking them, as Zscout370 suggested, might be a good idea.

Keep the "Guidelines for use" section concise and stick to the most important details. That the national anthem is protected by law may be "interesting and pertinent", but the same cannot be said for some of the other information in the section. Similarly, information about the "should we change the language of the anthem" debate does not belong in the History section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it's fine to link the article to translations of the national anthem on Wikisource. Perhaps someone could add the Tamil translation to Wikisource at some stage. There are already Wikisource boxes in the "Lyrics" section, so it's probably unnecessary to have more links in the "External links" section.
  • I've shortened the "Guidelines for use" section slightly, taking out some repeated information. I don't think it needs to be shortened any more – it's not excessively long anyway.
  • Have moved the information about changing the language that the anthem is in to a new section entitled "Attitudes towards the national anthem".
  • Image wish list: Singapore City coat of arms from Victoria Theatre, students or soldiers standing at attention during a flag-raising ceremony, Singaporean sportsmen and women or fans singing the national anthem. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"Attitudes towards the national anthem" appears to be an inappropriate section title. The debate is about whether to change the language of our national anthem, not about whether Singaporeans feel a sense of pride when singing our national anthem. In a bold restructuring of the article, I moved the information in the "Attitudes towards the national anthem" section to a new subsection of the "Lyrics" section, entitled "Translations".
My restructuring also made the "Guidelines for use" section a subsection of the "Use of the national anthem" section, since the guidelines concern the use of our national anthem. Although I considered creating a "The anthem" section with "Lyrics", "Translations" and "Arrangements and recordings" (to be renamed "Music") as subsections, I decided against doing so. Such a merge would be too bold to make without consensus.
Nevertheless, we should consider renaming the "Arrangements and recordings" section to "Music", trimming it to one paragraph that only includes information about the music. With the "Attitudes towards the national anthem" section now, "Translations", a subsection of the "Lyrics" section, it definitely need to be shortened to a single paragraph as well. As Awadewit advised you when reviewing Singapore Stone's GA nomination, avoid using too many quotes.
Finally, the list in the "Guidelines for use" section could be converted to prose. I would be happy to help with the changes I proposed above. If you feel that my bold reorganisation was too bold and inappropriate, feel free to revert my changes and discuss them on this talk page.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine for (1) the section "Attitudes towards the national anthem" to be renamed as "Translations" and made a subsection of "Lyrics"; (2) the section "Guidelines for use" to be made a subsection of "Use of the national anthem".
  • I see where you're going with the idea of creating a new section called "The anthem", but a better heading needs to be chosen, since the whole article is about "the anthem". What about "Lyrics and music"?
  • I have no strong objections to the heading "Arrangements and recordings" being renamed "Music", although I think the original heading is clearer. However, no clear reason has been given for trimming the section to one paragraph. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.
  • I also do not see any clear reason for trimming the contents of "Translation" to a single paragraph, and am afraid I do not entirely agree with Awadewit's views about the use of quotations in articles. They are not part of the Manual of Style or Good Article criteria. In any case, there aren't that many quotations in this article.
  • I considered rewriting the list in "Guidelines for use" in prose form, but decided it would be easier for readers to refer to a list. It is worth pointing out that there is value in setting out the law relating to the use of the national anthem. By way of comparison, there is a whole article ("United States Flag Code") on the law relating to the use of the flag of the United States. There isn't enough material for a separate article on the law relating to the use of "Majulah Singapura", which is why I feel it is appropriate to have a section detailing the relevant legal provisions in this article.
  • J.L.W.S., if you have time you may want to try expanding the introductory paragraph so that it better summarizes the article. Thanks for your work! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There are several reasons why the sections should be trimmed:
  • Renaming the sections makes some information irrelevant. For example, the poll has nothing to do with translations of our national anthem. Similarly, after the "Arrangements and recordings" section is renamed "Music", the first paragraph should be removed.
  • The GA criteria dictates that articles be written in summary style, "without going into unnecessary details". Readers will get tired and bored if an article is too long.
  • If an article is longer than 32 kB, users of older browsers may have trouble reading and editing it. Long articles will also take a long time to load on slow connections and mobile devices.
I am glad that you agree with my bold reorganisation. After further consideration, I have decided against merging the "Lyrics" and "Music" sections. When I have the time, I would be happy to rewrite the lead section.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the renaming of some sections should be at the expense of the pertinent information in the article. That seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I disagree that the information about Singaporeans' views on the national anthem and early arrangements and recordings of the anthem should be deleted from the article – in my view they are not by any means "unnecessary details". If it is thought they do not sit well with the current section headings, then new headings should be chosen, or the material moved to other sections. Perhaps the views of other editors can be sought on this matter. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Salutes

Salutes

Previously, it was conventional for persons present when the national anthem was performed to stand with their arms by their sides. In recent years, at the government's encouragement, it has become customary to place one's right clenched fist over one's heart when the anthem is played or sung.[15]

I have confirmed with a teacher friend (he would be the best person to confirm this as the National Anthem is played in schools every morning) that there is no such thing. Pupils continue to sing the anthem while standing at attention with their arms by their sides.

Persons in military or paramilitary uniforms generally don their head dress and salute on the first note of the anthem, holding the salute till the last note.

Anyone who has performed military service would know this. I am sure the written directive is somewhere in MINDEF's general orders or something but not available online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.12 (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interesting comments. I do seem to remember, though, that there was official encouragement to place one's clenched fist over one's heart when national anthem is played or sung. Unfortunately, I've not been able to find any definitive references for this. However, since there is a newspaper article attesting to the practice, I don't think information about it should be removed from the article at this stage. I've therefore reverted your edit. I've also not located any references for the use of a salute by military personnel. Unfortunately, the fact that your teacher friend has said something or that "[a]nyone who has performed military service would know" is not really sufficient evidence. If you (or other editors) can help locate some references such as Ministry of Education circulars and MINDEF orders and directives, even if they are not available online, do add them to the article. By the way, do sign and date your postings by adding four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your messages. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I don't think that passing mention counts as a WP:RS. So, we should just take out the entire sentence. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. The newspaper article seems to be quoted out of context as the footballer mentioned seems to the be only one I have ever heard of who placed his hand over the heart when the national anthem was played. I hope you've not confused it with placing our clenched fists over the heart when saying the pledge.

Ref to http://www.sg/explore/symbols_anthem_guideline.htm, "3. Dignity and decorum should be observed whenever it is played or sung. Everyone must stand up as a mark of respect.". There is no mention of placing the right hand over the heart.

When the right hand IS placed over the heart, it is when The Pledge is being recited as follows:

http://www.sg/explore/symbols_pledge_guideline.htm 2. Individuals reciting the Pledge shall clench their right fists to the left side of their chests as a gesture to symbolise loyalty to the nation.

As for a salute by military personnel, I have not come across any written directive although I think it would be in the RSM's manual which is on the SAF intranet. As I am no longer in service I have no access to that :( 137.132.3.6 (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rifleman 82. I suggest we err on the side of generosity and leave the information in until better evidence turns up. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "the National Anthem is played in schools every morning" and students (like myself) place our right clenched fists over our hearts when reciting the pledge, but not when singing Majulah Singapura. However, it goes without saying that Hildanknight is not a reliable source. The New Paper is, but that is simply one article "attesting to the practice", without mentioning any form of encouragement of this practice by the government. May I also note that the sentence about salutes is unreferenced. Unless and until reliable and suitable references are found and cited in the article, the section should probably be removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For the part on salutes, this may help:

Paying of Compliments at Parades and Ceremonies - GOM 402-03-01 http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resources/e-books/ebklist.-imindefPars-0022-DownloadFile.tmp/ourArmyCustomsTraditions.pdf (page 27) Delirious prince (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Zscout370 removed the entire section, prematurely I think. I've restored it but deleted references to the practice of holding one's clenched fist to one's heart during the performance of the national anthem being officially endorsed. It may well be that it is incorrect for people to do so when the anthem is played, as compared to when the national pledge is taken, but the New Paper article attests to the fact that people in Singapore are now doing so. There is a YouTube video (which can't be referenced in the article as it's probably in breach of copyright) showing the entire Singapore national football team doing so. I've rewritten the portion on military salutes based on the source provided by Delirious prince. Thanks for that! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)