Talk:Religion in Singapore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Needs copy/style editing, and much amplification (including effects of modernization) Dpr 04:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Islam in Singapore
http://www.brockwells.com/cheap-flights-to-Singapore.htm accordin to this website, Islam is the second largest religion. Not christianity. All other websites say the same thing.
- As far as I can tell, the original source for those figures is http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/asia/singapore?v=print. That site plagarises without attribution. The current wiki article states that the figures are from the 2000 census, so you have to change the wording to reflect the new source.(or remove attribution to the old). --Dodo bird 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese residents
In the first paragraph, it is written that 76 percent of the population is Chinese. Do you mean that they're of Chinese origin, or that they have dual citizinship. Or maybe you mean to say that they are not citizens of Singapore (in which case, they shouldn't count in the country's religion statistics in the first place).
- Chinese in race, not nationality.--Dodo bird 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] someone start the hinduism one!
[edit] Restrictions
Please refer to the book entitled "Ritual is Theatre, Theatre is Ritual" by Dr Margaret Chan of SMU.
http://www.smu.edu.sg/news_room/press_releases/2006/20060503.asp
The content of the book, albeit claimed to be extract from her PhD research with Royal Holloway University, is however of low academic quality (strictly to the standards required of a PhD researcher). A debate on her publication ensued in a local Toaist forum sintua.com under the title "Ritual is Theatre, Theatre is Ritual".
http://sintua.com.sg/forum/viewforum.php?f=11&topicdays=0&start=100
The topic attracted 153 postings and 2390 viewers before the thread was locked. The author of the book purportedly participated in the said forum through her photographer.
Chen LongFa 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"...there has recently been a local publication that incessantly attacked Taoism under the pretext of academic research and yet escaped the brunt of fire."
Any article(s) to verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.7 (talk) 14:52, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

