Talk:Singapore Stone

Singapore Stone has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 14, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
October 21, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
October 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 29, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 22, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Singapore Stone* (*fragment pictured), a sandstone slab bearing an undeciphered 13th century inscription, was blown up by the British in 1843 to make way for a fort?
Current status: Good article

Singapore Mid‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]