Talk:Study mama

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

Page move[edit]

Should we move this page to study mama instead of peidu mama? This is because the term peidu mama refers to a Chinese study mama. From ICA statistics, about one-thirds of study mamas in Singapore do not come from mainland China. --Terrancommander 13:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move, follows convention in english news media. --Vsion 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "Peidu mama" dosent refer to a "Chinese study mama" by itself, but it connoates more Chineseness then it has to.--Huaiwei 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single parent?[edit]

Hmm... is it really that most of the peidu mama are divorced women? It's quite inconceivable; any explanation for this phenomenon if it's true? --Vsion 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be. If they were still married, why will they come to Singapore when they can just reside in Mainland China? I didn't follow up much about study mamas. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long Distance Marriage? Anyway, since this article is also about discrimination and stereotyping, it is important to have verifiable facts and not make generalising statement. For example, wordings like "Peidu mamas gathered outside ..." should be replaced by "Some peidu mamas gathered ..." --Vsion 04:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ya. Most of them are divorced, or got some family problem, so they try to start anew in Singapore? So one of the (unconfirmed and interior) motives they come here could be to look for a husband too, apart from jobs and education. --Terrancommander 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erh... most as in "more than 50% of the 6800+ people"? Where did you get this information, did ICA released data to the public regarding the marital status of visa holders? --Vsion 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SHIT guys, they're here to help their kids study in SG. Fucking source your accusations please. -- Миборовский 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake, Miborovsky, they're not angels (similar to our maids). Do you realise the problems they pose to Singapore? In fact, I'm even surprised that the government allowed study mamas to come here, when they're already giving scholarships to older students from China. Only reason I can think of allowing them to come is to dilute the population so there won't be a racial takeover. You realise that an overwhelming percentage of study mamas come from China right... As for the source, its already there, go check it out. Even MPs and lawyers are commenting on it. --Terrancommander 04:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway Mibrovsky, if you're related to one in any way, we could always get an insider's account. --Terrancommander 05:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already removed that statement from the article yesterday as I find many serious problems in the content. Remind everyone to the guidelines in WP:VERIFY and Wikipedia:Attack page. --Vsion 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated the source, Straits Times and the date. You want the title? It's "No one owes study mamas a living." Everything that I've put in can be seen from there. And Vsion, "most" comes from Straits Times sources also, but they're like a few years back. It is a well-known fact that they are single mums, that's the reason why they're neither called "study parents" nor "study papas", but "study mamas". And, the newspaper also states that most of them have other motives in coming here, reason why government is cracking down. --Terrancommander 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the date for the article entitled "No one owes study mamas a living"? I find it unusual for a newspaper like the Straits Times to have an article as partison as this.--Huaiwei 05:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who owes them a living? Sunday, 09/07/2006, The Straits Times, By:Tracy Sua & Fern Deng. --Terrancommander 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wrote both bad and good points of study mamas as well as the government. I don't see why the bad points of study mamas are deleted, but their good points, and those bad ones of the government still stand. --Terrancommander 05:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Means I cant see it online. Darn. Btw, Who owes them a living? and No one owes them a living? means very different to me. I do not consider it ethnical to change the title of a third party source at your whip and fancy just to proof your point.--Huaiwei 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake lor. Whatever, it may be biased, seeing that it probably comes from a review. What I'm trying to prove here is just that study mamas aren't angels. Anyway, the title Who owes them a living is a rhetorical question, you are supposed to answer No one owes them a living, which I did. Or you might want to say Singapore taxpayers owe them a living? --Terrancommander 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Mr Terrancommander I am not related to one, and I do not even know anyone who is. You are just regurgitating all of the utterly untrue accusations against them. This sort of bigotry is just... just unbearably infuriating. Nobody said they're angels, but let me tell you, they're not vampires you think they are. They're human too and they have emotions. -- Миборовский 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for continuing the argument, but if I recall, that's what people wrote to Straits Times Forum about maids too. If you not happy with the source, you're welcome to delete everything except the "introduction" and "jobs" sections of the article, seeing as the rest have been cited with that source. Fine by me. You psychic, can think what I'm thinking? Wow! Don't put words into my mouth please... I'm not a bigot. If I am, I would not even be discussing in the first place. --Terrancommander 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be pleased to enlighten you that Singaporeans are not unreasonable and not stupid. Do you think most of us would start discriminating them based on circulating rumours and fragmentory reports? Of course, there must be some truth in our accusations, and some of these study mamas probably flout laws more frequently and severely as compared to the average Singaporean; consequently, there is more frequent and severe discrimination. However, this scenario has been blown up and generalised. A fallacy of hasty generalisation though, no doubt. --Terrancommander 13:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you brush off a "mistake" like that with such nonchalance? I am sorry, but I am greatly disturbed by your lack of basic scholastic ethics, which is of utmost importance in a site like wikipedia. How someone should answer that question posed by the newspaper article is for the reader to decide, and not for you to impose an answer onto others, irregardless of how "true" you think it is. Please be reminded that the wikipedia community in general has little tolerate for such POVed behavior, and neither do I.--Huaiwei 09:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, rhetorical question, you know? Of course I take the context into consideration; if they are saying we should take care of them, I would've changed it. See the philosophical discussion on "What do words mean" if you don't get my point. You are saying that supporting study mamas is our duty and it is my PoV that we should not support them? (Another rhetorical question) If not, which is my PoV behavior? The faliure to support an inexistent policy to support study mamas? I still fail to see which "scholastic ethics" I am lacking. After all, the source was quoted properly in the article. This discussion is getting nowhere, without anyone editing the article. So what if I'm biased? As long as the biasness doesn't get into the article you should be happy. If you don't mind, make your words into action please. (i.e. Edit the article as you please). --Terrancommander 11:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of my comment was on your conduct, which I found deplorable enough to comment on at length. How that should turn into my viewpoints on Study Mamas themselves is beyond me, for I have not even made a single comment on the content itself. You attempted to use a newspaper article to support your POV, but when asked to quote the article, you mis-quoted its title to slant it towards your viewpoint even before others have a chance to read the article and form their own opinions. You are interested in seeing "progress" in the article. Sure. It will only get "somewhere" if you refrain from further attempting to push your POV via your edits and in this talkpage using unethical means.--Huaiwei 12:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say, it is a rhetorical question, so it is clearly biased, you get it? It is a rhetorical question. How are you supposed to answer otherwise? It is a rhetorical question. Like I said, let's just forget that and start working on the article. The article's title is not even stated in the references, so even if it is relevant, its not going to show up. What I mean is, instead of this pointless discussion, why don't we all just forget it and continue working on the article? It seems to me that once this dispute started, no one is editing the article anymore. I would be pleased if you could inform me specifically which Wikipedia policy I am flouting. I know for a fact that Miborovsky, an administrator, has not observed civility. Also, all of you probably know that what's in the article is the first draft from the newspaper source (first drafts are usually not good) and can be edited. Just edit it if you feel like it, for heaven's sake! --Terrancommander 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it being a rhetorical question absolve you from the sin of amending the newspaper article's title? That you think this is anything about a violation of civility leaves me wondering if you even understood basic academic ethics, which you dont need a wikipolicy to abide by. If you do this in an academic text, I would be grading you an F.--Huaiwei 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mibovorsky clearly swore up there, you go read it. If you are implying that I am a failure at academics, I suggest you read the policy on personal attacks. Quote in case you missed it out somehow: SHIT guys, they're here to help their kids study in SG. Fucking source your accusations please. -- Миборовский 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) --Terrancommander 15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does Mibovorsky's comment has anything to do with your lack of moral courage and lackluster attitude towards proper referencing? And if I am pointing out that you lack both, and you see that as a personal attack, then that is such a dissapointing level of maturity for a supposedly "elite" student, if that is how the schools want their students to be seen as. (btw, God knows how you can be an Esperanza member when you seem to cause more stress than anything else to others.)--Huaiwei 18:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I need a photographic memory then. If you want to know, I come from Mainland China. That sentence in itself is not a personal attack, but if repeated, is. Yeah, you are attacking me, and you are stressed while I am not? -.- I have a challenge for you, comrade. Why don't you go and find sources if you think mine are inappropriate? At least, I am making an effort to improve this article by spending time to search for sources and write them in. I also wish to point out that I did reference the article appropriately as you can see from there. There is no point continuing this argument for argument's sake, and I will step out of this page for a period of time. --Terrancommander 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, its fine by me if you go against the norm and say that "Singapore taxpayers owe them a living". We can then add in the article that "some Singaporeans feel the need to support the study mamas". More points of view makes the article better. --Terrancommander 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, did I ever state my stand on the issue?--Huaiwei 14:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, means you agree with me. Either that, or you think very differently. :) --Terrancommander 15:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol...very funny conclusion there, kid. ;) You are just out to classify me in one category or the other, coz you just cant do without that or something?--Huaiwei 18:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, its called logical reasoning, you can't be sitting on the fence, hurts your butt a lot :D --Terrancommander 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to repeat that this discussion whether I'm stupid or not has got nothing to do with the article. Why don't we just stop this discussion here and continue with the original discussion about the article? --Terrancommander 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, instead of saying citing sources on the talk page, you can just put a {{fact}} behind a sentence. Up to now, I still don't know which sentences you find unsourceful. (sic) --Terrancommander 05:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrancommander, could you scan The Straits Times article, "Who owes them a living?", and post the scanned copy on this talk page? This will help alot. --Vsion 06:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hands up in immediate agreement.--Huaiwei 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a day or two, and could you tell me which copyright should I use? --Terrancommander 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tag it as copyrighted and state it is being put up temporary for discussion purposes, and not for display in any article. After we have copied it, it can be quickly deleted. I did this with google earth imagery for another situation last year, and to great effect.--Huaiwei 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Miborovsky... no f-words here...--Tdxiang 10:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder incident[edit]

If I'm not wrong, that murder incident did not involve a peidu mama; she was just an ordinary Chinese national. Can someone check? --Terrancommander 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cause I remember one newspaper article saying she and another woman were single China nationals who had come to Singapore to start up a business. So, either she is not a peidu mama, or she is a bad peidu mama who had abused her pass. --Terrancommander 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huang Shu Ying, Huang Na's mother, is also a study mama. Added that in with sources. --Terrancommander 17:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that she is a study mama contributed to the death of her daughter?--Huaiwei 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you interpreted it that way, since I did not say so. But doesn't that just highlight the fact that Singaporeans can be caring towards them while discriminating them at the same time, seeing as Huang Na's family received a few tens of thousands of money at her funeral? Also, it shows that they are taken advantage off. Anyway, if you feel it is out of point, just remove it, fine with me. Discussion is pointless unless action is taken. --Terrancommander 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article text certainly makes no mention on how some Singaporeans do show symphathy for this woman despite supposed wide-spread discrimination. It merely states that this child has a study mama as a mother, and without any other supporting information, what is it trying to lead readers to? Discussion is certainly not pointless unless no concensus is reached.--Huaiwei 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus[edit]

I think this article has gone too far out of point. Being an article on study mamas, we should be focusing on how they are actually helping children to "study" and how they are being "mamas", instead of focusing on their plight, discrimination and such. In my opinion, just a section on that is enough, but the rest could be focused on other facts such as their age groups, reasons for coming and such. Unfortunately, this has proven difficult to find, given that ICA does not publish such statistics. --Terrancommander 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the article on Jew only has a relatively small section on their plight, as well as during the Holocaust. --Terrancommander 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of financial support?[edit]

Question: In the application of "student pass" and the application of social pass for "mother of student pass holder" to the ICA, does the ICA requires the applicants to show proof of financial support? I took a quick look at the ICA forms, it requires, among others,

  1. a local sponsor (which is quite different from financial support)
  2. admission to a school,

otherwise, the forms do not specify any requirement for proof of financial support. Do the schools require proof of financial support before accepting admission? Have the ICA relegates such checks to the schools? --Vsion 04:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know whether its true, but I read a forum (I think its Young PAP or STOMP), someone said that some study mamas just need to show that they have 30k in their bank book to come here. That same guy claims that they borrow money from loansharks to get that 30k in their bank book, then come to Singapore, ending up heavily in debt, considering they are not allowed a work permit in their first year of stay. On signing their (1k-5k) bond not to engage in "illegal activities", they are assured of a place for their children for admission. Um yes, my Straits Times source also confirms that there has to be a Singapore-based sponsor to ensure that both student and mother don't flout regulations. However, schools are probably not given the power to check their student's financial background because it can be very personal. --Terrancommander 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Terrancommander's reference[edit]

After making a few edits today, I took a closer look at how Terrancommander used references. He added a reference to little speck, which posted an article from The Sunday Star:

If you refer to the article's version on 01:56, 24 July 2006 [1] (before my edits), Terrancommander used this particular reference on four occasions, for the following texts in the articles:

  • The typical study mama usually works part-time in various jobs, such as tutors or in the service sector, in order to support their lifestyle in Singapore.
  • The government is concerned that some study mamas are using their children's education as an excuse for coming to Singapore to work.
  • Although this woman was not a study mama, Singaporeans perceived other study mamas to be similar to her, fuelling even more discrimination
  • Due to the bad publicity surrounding the murder and massage parlours affair, peidu mamas face increasing discrimination and stereotyping from the locals by being associated with vice and illegal activities

However, the littleSpeck reference does not lead to any of these four statements. In the reference [2], there is no mention about "tutoring", "using education as a cover", or "Singaprean's perception that other study mamas are similar to the murder victim". Why was this reference given to justify these statements? Unless User:Terrancommander can show that he had used a wrong reference by mistake, and that there is indeed a true source for these statements; otherwise this is a serious misrepresentation. No one can afford the time to check all his edits, it is very disappointing. --Vsion 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Um, when I put a source at the back of a paragraph, it means that the source is the whole paragraph and not the last sentence alone because I don't think its right to label every single sentence with the same source. Or did you feel the LittleSpeck source was not objective enough? (Because it had the word "I" in it, implying opinion.) I added it in because I felt the need to corrobarate sources with the discrimination and stereotyping regarding study mamas.
And, that source states that they are perceived to come over for jobs, using education as a cover. The "suspicious source" comes from Miborovsky's edit. Only after I changed the referencing format to {{cite news}} then you realised that there wasn't a title? Lol...

Singaporeans do perceive that some study mamas are fake, that's why I used the word "perceive", an unbiased word. Anyway, its fine by me if you remove the LittleSpeck source, no problem. (But if you realise, there is a controversial tag on this talk page.) However, I must point out that there is suspicion by Singaporeans that they are using their children as a cover for studying in Singapore (evidence of stereotyping). Can put this in as "original research" from the many blogs read, and another editor agrees with me that people have been saying bad things about them on the Singaporean discussion page.

I also realise that out of the true quotes I put in, those criticising the study mamas have been removed and that of Wong Kan Seng was not. If you want to know, the two MP quotes and WKS quote came from the same source. But the WKS quote was at the bottom of the paragraph, so you saw it there, but not the other two, which were somewhere in the middle.

Removals
This, this, and this removals come from Source 1: The Straits Times, and the whole paragraph is referenced to appropriately there. Doesn't anyone other than me have the article to check if it is true?This removal was of a contribution by Miborovsky, but it is dated a bit long ago, about 3 years. I posted this User_talk:Miborovsky#Study_mama on his page sometime ago, before you removed his source.

I fully understand that the factual Huang Na incident may be out of point, if you feel so too, it's fine to remove that. Also, I hope you understand that I am not editing this article for fun, but I am pursuing good faith in fattening up the article. I would like to suggest here that we find more positive and negative sources to reference this article, as there seems to be a lack of sources. Good job on cleaning up the article, you seem to be the really concerned about its present state. --Terrancommander 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you shove this serious mistake of yours with a "no problem" response? Do you know how much time I spent checking and clearing up the mess you created? Before you ever edit this article again, go learn how to write accurately and faithfully to the sources, and don't ever again make generalising statement about "Singaporeans", "study mamas", and "government". You represent no one and has no right to attribute opinions to others. If you don't realise yourself, your biased, insulting, and irresponsible edits and comments are reflective of your own prejudice and bigotry, which are already crystal clear from your disgraceful comments in [3] and [4] . --Vsion 03:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Vsion, your sources are not exactly verifiable and from your POV. The edits you made are controversial and may be offensive to others. It is not any normal blunder, "no problem"? Its more than that you know. You have indirectly attacked a user, by saying "Study mamas" suck is insulting the people of China. We all had enough about this, we need to deal with your nonsense all this while with this article. Please think thrice before what you submit your edit. Fatten up the article in a neutral way not from your point of view. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for those edits, if you consider them offensive and discriminatory, because I do not think so. Vsion, I said "no problem" to you removing because I did not want an edit war and I am fine with it being removed. Terence Ong, you misunderstand me, I did not say study mamas suck. If you see the context which it was placed in, I said the study mama [article] sucks, referring to the article at its state at that point in time. And I did not specify what my statement, "criticising them by saying that" meant. I will clarify why I said I felt like a study mama now. I said I felt like a peidu mama because I know I have already been discriminated and stereotyped right from the start after I rearranged the names on the SGpedians' noticeboard, judging by the tone of all your comments. There is also a reason why I said I was criticising them by portraying myself similarly to them, but I will not mention it here. I drew a comparison between me and a study mama. Why would I want be prejudiced against myself? I would be pleased to know which user I have indirectly attacked and in what way. Hm, I find that some people are also attacking me, if you read up there. As far as I'm concerned, I have not attacked anyone personally or defamed them. Also, I don't think that it is "we" who dealt with my nonsense. The credit goes to Vsion who spent quite some time, and for that I salute him. --Terrancommander 08:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment at wp:sg!, it was my stupidity to add the "[article]" to your insulting comment (see [5]) . From your subsequent edits and comments, it was abundantly clear that you intended it to have double meanings. I don't bite new and young editors without giving them chances, but you have been given plenty of opportunities to correct your comments and edits. --Vsion 13:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is getting truly disturbing. Without Vsion admitting that it was actually he who added the "[article]" disclaimer, we all would have assumed it was Terran who did it. What shocks me utterly, is how he pretends it was the later. I am sorry, but newbie or no, this is grossly over the ethical line, and is plainly dishonest, to say the least. If Terran feels he is "being attacked", I suppose he has only his own behavior to reflect on if he wants an explanation for that?--Huaiwei 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Study_mama&oldid=1205487543"