Jump to content

Talk:Speak Good English Movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSpeak Good English Movement was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 24, 2014Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2018 and 31 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taymccreary.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different standards of English

[edit]

I can't speak for the movement, but good English need not be defined as being British. If, for example, a Singaporean wants to do business with an American, he'd be well-advised not to use fortnight which, though acceptable British usage, isn't part of American English. Two weeks is OK in British and American English and might be called part of standard English.

ahh.... i think the last line is a bit racist, POV and just stereotypical... i think it should be removed. an also to the guy above fortnight is used in america, and two weeks is used as well in english based on the british version, it really just depends from person to person. Australian Jezza 07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Grammatical correctness"

[edit]

Here's how the article starts (after markup-stripping):

The Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) is a language movement in Singapore to encourage Singaporeans to speak grammatically correct English

It continues in the same vein, talking credulously about "good" and "grammatically correct" English in contradistinction to what a lot of Singaporeans speak.

Have the Singaporeans whose Singlish/English is thought to be in need of improvement learned this language as a first language? If so, they'll be native speakers of it and therefore it will be grammatically correct in its own terms, just as any native lect of English, even a stigmatized mesolect, is grammatically correct.

If the purpose of this campaign is to have Singaporeans speak something closer to standard transatlantic or British English, then this does make sense (whatever I may think of its desirability). And if Singaporean politicians, teachers, and other non-linguists believe that nonstandard equals substandard, then this (mistaken) belief merits mention in an encyclopedia. However, for this WP article to suggest that deviations from "standard" English (whichever standard it may be) are "incorrect" or "wrong" would fly in the face of consensus among linguists and do a disservice to readers. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is a direct quote from the official SGEM site, and I've now labeled it as such. IMHO the quality of the article has gone down despite/because of the GA push, virtually everything is parroted verbally and uncritically from government sources. Jpatokal (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding TOC and credibility

[edit]

TheOnlineCitizen isn't a mere online comment site. In 2011, TOC was gazetted as a political association and is registered as a media outlet under the Media Development Authority. See http://theonlinecitizen.com/theonlinecitizen-team/ , see also http://www.seapabkk.org/component/content/article/22-seapa-reports/100585-singapore-historic-elections-inspire-hope-for-freer-expression.html , and see

Put back this sentence in my previous edit after its removal: In an exclusive interview with The Online Citizen, one of the Singapore's key social commentary websites, its unnamed founder directly called into question Dr Balakrishnan's appeal about the SGEM.[1]

  1. ^ “Please stop hum-tumming Singlish! Just leebit alone!” – The Online Citizen, 17 September 2010. Retrieved 18 November 2010

Article comments

[edit]

Per request, I'm adding some comments on here that could help move the article closer to GA status:

  • The structure is the big problem; it's mostly a slew of list pieces year to year, and the article feels stunted as a result. Converting the lists to prose and making it more readable in that regard would be a big help.
  • Quite a few quotes are unreferenced, as are most of the programmes.
  • For that matter, I don't think noting every program is all that useful. Perhaps just noting the most significant ones would be better. If all are necessary, then the first point applies, it needs to be meshed into the prose better.

That alone should be enough to work with to start out. Wizardman 23:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Speak Good English Movement. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Speak Good English Movement. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling errors?

[edit]

Taymccreary, your recent edit puzzles me. "Center" within "Regional English Language Center" does seem to have been a mistake. But why the changes from "organised" to "organized" and the like -- in what sense were these "spelling errors" (your edit summary)? -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, chiming in as instructor for the class Taymccreary is a part of and think this is likely explained in regional spelling differences where the versions with "s" are British English as opposed to North American English (Canadians and Americans both tend to use "z" for these words). If the article originated from a British spelling standard, these edits could be reverted I think. CESchreyer (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)CESchreyer[reply]
At the very top of the page is "{{Use British English|date=January 2013}}". To me, this means things like "got" (not "gotten") as past participle of GET, and use of "pavement" for strips of a road reserved for pedestrians. However:
  1. Template:Use British English says "This maintenance template adds articles to the hidden category Category:Use British English to denote articles which have British English spelling." (my emphasis)
  2. Interested persons at en:WP (notably, those who busy themselves around WP:MOS) seem convinced that "organised" etc (as opposed to "organized" etc) constitute the British standard.
And therefore this template mandates "organised" etc: what Taymccreary changed from. (It's not my own preference, as it happens. Not that my preference matters.)
Did you mean Template:Use British English Oxford spelling or Template:Use Canadian English? Actually:
  1. MOS:TIES would seem to mandate Template:Use Singaporean English.
  2. The article Singaporean English suggests that the spelling is that of (non-Oxford) British English.
Therefore this particular change of templates wouldn't affect the spelling.
Anyway, please read, digest and implement MOS:RETAIN. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the extra information as I didn't (and still don't see) the #Template:Use British English template on this article. I'd like to know how to see it or where to look for it on other individual articles as this will be important to my students. Perhaps our Wikiedu people Shalor (Wiki Ed) can help me with that though. In the meantime, I will go and change the edits back to the British spelling. As my class is a class in Linguistic Anthropology, we emphasize respecting diverse varieties of languages, we definitely want to follow the guidelines as defined by the community. CESchreyer (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)CESchreyer[reply]
I see you've already reverted the changes. Thank you Hoary . CESchreyer (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)CESchreyer[reply]
Taymccreary, I infer that you're a university student and have to say that I'm surprised that you're having your (probably overworked) teacher do a lot of your thinking and interacting for you. (I hope that I misjudge the situation.) CESchreyer -- our edits here crossed -- thank you for your concern. In this edit, I indeed made the changes, reverting Taymccreary's edit aside from their correction (yes, in the particular context, an actual correction) of "Center" to "Centre". If you take the option to edit the article (or anyway, to edit it in its current state), then you'll see "{{Use British English|date=January 2013}}" at its very beginning. (The double braces, without "Template:", invoke the template; double square brackets, with "Template:", merely link to it.) You and I know that many languages are endangered, the use of many languages and language varieties is stigmatized, mere orthographic conventions don't constitute language, neither British nor Singaporean English is remotely endangered, ... etc. I'm not defending British/Singaporean spelling here: it needs no defence/defense. No, the problem is that a significant minority of (non-linguist!) WP editors are very defensive about this kind of thing, seeing threats to their preferred (aka "the correct") spelling. An article can easily turn into a tug-of-war between a silly partisan of US spelling and a silly partisan of British spelling. In order to avoid this kind of stupidity, en:WP has two rather sensible rules: (i) If Freedonia (let's say) has a recognizable variety (spelling convention) of English, then an article about a Freedonian matter should be written in Freedonian English (spelling); (ii) as long as the variety of English in which an article starts its life isn't inappropriate, then this variety will be retained. Hope this explanation makes sense and is helpful; please don't hesitate to ask questions. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to improve

[edit]

Hello Taymccreary -- anything happening?

Some effort has gone into this article in the past, but it's terrible. Being terrible, it should be easy to improve (if hard to turn into something good). Just about wherever I look are major problems. Here are just two:

Since 2003, the Speak Good English Movement has been launched annually with year-long programmes and activities held island-wide to increase the awareness among Singaporeans that speaking good English matters in their daily lives. Each year a different theme focusing on the target audience is created. The themes that were used in the campaign thus far are

Not sure what "focusing on the target audience" adds to this paragraph, but that minor point aside, this implies that the campaign was relaunched as recently as 2017 if not 2018. Is this true, and if it is true, then what has happened since 2013?

Should the "up until 2015 are:" section be edited to reflect the current year? The logo on the site hasn't changed since 2019, and I don't know where I'd look on the archive to find where they list their themes online right now (very busy) - could the phrasing of this be changed to not require regular updates? Anafyral (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The SGEM has received mixed reactions from its beginning; its strongest opponents have included linguists and social commentators.

Not a single example is provided. Whereas in a well-educated democracy perhaps linguists mightn't have to point out that a campaign to have people speak good is based on faulty premises, in a one-party nation where the government always knows best, pointing out this kind of thing may even be slightly dangerous. The article might tell us. Certainly it shouldn't talk airily about "linguists and social commentators" without evidence or examples. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find sources for the latter two quotes attributed to TalkingCock in the citations listed right now. Does anyone know where they would have come from? Anafyral (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speak_Good_English_Movement&oldid=1216646812"