Talk:Raffles Hotel

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Barbequeue (talk · contribs) has been paid by 3QDigital on behalf of Fairmont Hotels. Their editing has included contributions to this article.

Untitled

Some of the text of this page is a very blatant copy of text from the book referred to, even including the use of "this book":

In 1987/88, while researching the history of the hotel for this book THE RAFFLES TREASURY

I do not have any knowledge of the topic, and I don't know the contents of the book referred to, so I defer actual editing to others. --Gar37bic (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is famous for being famous

The place was either the only or the best luxury hotel for a long time. It was a favorite for expat colonials. During a run-down period it was also an expat-backpacker favorite. It is a wonderful old colonial building. The current food and service is great, but very expensive. However it has an extra special niche for having been a favorite of the rich and powerful in bygone times.

I have some familiarity with the place. I went there out of curiosity when I first worked in Singapore and went there for my first wedding anniversary. Both are long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.60.29 (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four or two brothers?

While this English version states two brothers as the founders of the hotel, articles in other languages name four of them: Martin, Tigran, Aviet, and Arshak Sarkies. Which version is correct? 84.153.197.71 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four, being Parsis who also operated hotels in Malaya and Burma. Masalai (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of 300 Japanese officers

The suicide of 300 Japanese officers, as mentioned in the Operation Tiderace page, MUST be included in the Raffles Hotel history as it's obviously significant. I wonder if it is not because of corporate sanitizing. 109.149.133.55 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]