Jump to content

Talk:Singapore Naval Base

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

Inappropriate language: "tout"

[edit]
Winston Churchill touted it as the “Gibraltar of the East”.

Touted? Really?

tout (tout)

v. tout·ed, tout·ing, touts v.intr. 1. To solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen way. 2. To obtain and deal in information on racehorses.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tout

What's wrong with "Winston Churchill called it the Gibraltar of the East?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.167.32 (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. "Tout" in this context simply follows (one of the definitions of) the Oxford English Dictionary, which is "to attempt to persuade people the merits of something". To say that Churchill "called it" is to water down the strength of his words and make them a simple statement, which is not the case.Twistlethrop (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not staggered.

[edit]
It was completed in 1939 at a staggering cost of £60 million[1] — equivalent to £2½ billion in 2006.

I don't think that's staggering at all. £2.5bn over 16 years is only £160m a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.167.32 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Morris (the cited source) actually call this "staggering?" If so, perhaps it should be made clearer that this is Morris' characterization. --Yaush (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Singapore Naval Base. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy Armament Depot

[edit]

Menkh4243: Hi! Thanks for adding the external links but the links do not support your claims. The aerial photos and maps does not indicate any information of the bunkers. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justanothersgwikieditor: Hey! I am the leading researcher on the topic. It is area not known even to researchers at URA, NUS or NHB. This is all new research but also sensitive due to it being war related site and close to prisons. My research is correct and a trained eye will know that the maps and aerials support the write up. I would suggest it remain since I am expert on the field. Thank you. Menkh4243 (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Menkh4243: Unfortunately this is not how wikipedia works. You need to provide a reference to the statements you written otherwise it will be considered original research as I had previously written on your talkpage. I have to revert your changes. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justanothersgwikieditor: Hmm I see. But isn't Wikipedia for the greater good of sharing knowledge. This subject area is fresh vital knowledge not previously known by academics, and should be shared with the public. Unfortunately due to the government's involvement, nothing can be referenced directly to those statements as they will not publish my findings. So I am in a tricky spot. Any advice?
@Menkh4243: Without a verifiable source, what you wrote could be a hoax also. Publish your data and knowledge in a journal. Once it is there, we can use it. Thanks. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justanothersgwikieditor::: Hmm how unfortunate. Can images and proof of the findings on a blog or Instagram page be quoted? I can guarantee you its not a hoax haha. This is a frustrating situation. Thanks again for your help and guidance.
@Menkh4243: I am afraid they are not considered Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore_Naval_Base&oldid=1205307332"