Talk:Singapore Stone

Citations require verification - please help
Some of the citations in the article, particularly those taken from the website of the Singapore Paranormal Investigators, require verification. Please help if you can. Cheers, Jacklee 02:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jacklee, kudos for expanding on an otherwise forgotten SG stub. (1523 stubs to date & counting...) As it was much expanded substantially by u singlehandedly since Jul 12, I've posted the article on SGpedians' notice board so that relevant SGpedians are informed to reassess & render assistance as requested by u on this talkpage. Out of courtesy, do give due credits to the original creator esp when u self nom on DYK suggestions. As I regularly research on local history for my earlier writings, the following 3 titles by University Press are commonly referred by fellow historians and independent researchers as 'authorative' on early history of Singapore:


 * A History of Singapore by Chew, Ernest & et al
 * One Hundred Years' History of the Chinese in Singapore by Song Ong Siang
 * A History of Singapore: 1819-1988 by Turnbull, C. M.


 * As such, I've came upon the remarks made by John Crawfurd (Chew, 1991) on the early history & development of the S'pore River. As for the citations extracted from SPI earlier, as long as sources of its info are fully mentioned with discretionary footnotes, there shouldn't be any problem of verifiable claims unless in the eyes of a mischievious nitpicker. Rgds. Aldwinteo 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the advice about giving credit to the original creator. Will make sure I do that in the future. Cheers, Jacklee 20:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I manage to chance upon the abovementioned while browsing at the library recently. The details are as follows:
 * Chew, Ernest & et al, "Other Evidence of Pre-1819 Singapore", p. 9. (REM: It was an entry from John Crawfurd's journal dated 3 Feb 1822).
 * FYI & nec update -- Aldwinteo 13:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for reversion of certain changes
Hi, I've reverted certain changes to the article made since 22 July 2007 for the following reasons:


 * The acknowledgement of the source of the photograph at the top right-hand corner of the article was requested by the copyright owner as a condition of giving permission for the use of the photograph, and so should not have been removed.
 * The term "as well as" was changed to "and" with the comment that they are not the same. Why not? What's the relevant difference?
 * Changes should not have been made to text directly quoted from source material. Text in quotations should appear exactly as it does in the source, even if it is not in the standard Wikipedia style.
 * The word "artefact" was changed to "artifact". However, "artefact" is an acceptable variant spelling.

Cheers, Jacklee 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions and weight of the Singapore Stone?
Does anyone know the dimensions (length, breadth and width) and weight of the fragment of the original Singapore Stone that is now in the National Museum of Singapore? Is this information stated on a label in the Museum? It would be good to be able to insert this information into the article. Cheers, Jacklee 14:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandstone in article text but limestone in infobox?
What is the stone, sandstone or limestone? What do the sources say? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)