Talk:Toa Payoh ritual murders/Archive 1

Archive 1

DYK options

• ... that Adrian Lim thanked his judges when they sentenced him to death for the ritual killings of two children? — Created by Jappalang (talk). Self nom at 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alt1: ... that during the trial for the Toa Payoh ritual murders in Singapore, Howard Cashin received death threats for defending the accused, Adrian Lim? Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alt2: ... that for his child murders in Toa Payoh, Adrian Lim became the bogeyman of Singaporean children in the 1980s? Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alt3: ... that through the use of needles and eggs, Adrian Lim, the mastermind of the Toa Payoh ritual murders, convinced women to offer him money and sex? Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Alt1 was selected. Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Amutha Valli's court case

The mention of Adrian Lim is trivial; it was simply a case of "her once patronising of Adrian Lim". It has no impact on the case, which is still ongoing, and is no longer reported on. Adrian Lim's trial has no effect on the case; it does not play a part in affecting the judgments nor is there widespread reliable acknowledgement that the Toa Payoh murders were a significant factor of Mdm Valli's health. It was more of a moment of sensationalistic journalism. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and trivia; even if a trivia is verifiable, the focus of Wikipedia articles should be on encyclopaedic content and ignore items of casual connections (WP:HTRIVIA). Jappalang (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually news accounts tell of multiple visits, shock therapy and updated case notes said she drank his blood twice. The point is significant since it had a few headlines of its own [1]. The case is not being reported on because it is still in (extended) recess and the verdict is not out yet. I am currently creating a page for the case but its still WIP as there is a pile of info to go through. Eventually the two pages will be cross linked anyway so its informative to have that in an existing page first. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS and by extension WP:NOTNEWS. Lots of items are reported in newspapers, but unless the subject is covered extensively and is not of casual relationship, we should avoid inserting them into the article. Mdm Valli's condition is not proven to be caused by her association with Adrian Lim (as has been reported, medical professionals are stating that her condition existed long before), their relationship was casual (business-customer). Including it here just because "she visited Adrian Lim" is sensationalistic. Putting it in an article about her case would be more relevant. Context (how it relates to the article and fits into an encyclopaedic structure) is key, and it fails for this article. What is appropriate for one article may not be appropriate for another. In the peer reviews and FACs, the reviewers have often talked of irrelevant details, and Mdm Valli's case would be one of those. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats why its in the trivia section. The context is that she was one of Adrian Lim's more well known "clients", but unfortunately the page dedicated to him does not exist anymore. I've already tried putting it under Adrian Lim's bibliography section but it did not flow well. I'm shortening it so that its more relevant to the article, has less weight and with place holder links for the article when it is up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not encourage trivia (Wikipedia:Trivia sections). Trivia sections are heavily discouraged, and trivia on their own are not suitable for FAs (Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, "places the subject in context" and "without going into unnecessary detail". Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but it does give an identity to on of his clients rather than all the faceless people. I builds on the whole Adrian Lim mythos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on how it can build the mythos part, but (copied from my reply on your talk page): "If medical professionals conclude that Lim's treatments of Valli caused her condition to worsen (and become a cause of her conflict with the exorcists), we could work that in the "Legacy" section ("Lim's acts continue to affect his victims even after death." or such). As of now, however, it is an inconclusive item (wholesale speculation) that should not be chronicled in this article." Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Two conflicting motives for the murders??

The article gives two conflicting motives for the murder of the children:

1) The children had been killed as blood sacrifices to the Hindu goddess Kali.

2) When the police investigated a rape charge filed by one of Lim's targets, he became furious and decided to kill children to derail the investigations.

So which is it?

Imperfectgenius (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Both. According to Lim's statements, he wanted revenge on the police (for what he deems as frivolous charges, "one cannot rape [holy] his wife", he said). In his psychological interviews, he said that blood sacrifices to Kali would help him obtain aid from the goddess to further impeded the police. Thus, the two motives complement each other: Lim believed that by sacrificing the children, the police would have to investigate the murders (thus fulfilling his revenge) and Kali would further distract the law enforcers in their task. Jappalang (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary

Why are Sit's books desribed as primary sources? Are they the only sources which contain information such as eyewitness accounts or testimony from those involved in the murders?

Peter ^Isotalo 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Per his intention, Sit's books are re-printings of the court transcripts; only one or two sections (introduction, parting words, etc) in the book are written with the journalist's opinions. He stated that the transcripts were unaltered, except with the "censorship" (renaming) of certain witnesses to help protect their privacy. Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The citations from Sit's books are from what I can tell to forewords, not court transcripts (going by the roman numeral paging and the limited preview from Google Books). That would mean that the references are to a secondary source, even if the works themselves are mostly primary source material.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that much is true, so would it better to remove the "primary"/"secondary" titlings and just classify the sources under "Books", "News", and "Internet"? Jappalang (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. The primary/secondary division is more intended for articles on historical events rather than for modern day crime cases. If you want to specify that Sit's books are mostly court transcripts, it can be done by using some type of parenthesis instead. I'll make a suggestion edit to show you what I mean.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks good, although I think it is better to move the court transcripts part out of the template (to avoid possible future mess-ups). Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Style of English

Just a curious question: why does the article use British English, rather than Singaporean English? I don't mean Singlish, but rather what's being encouraged by the Speak Good English Movement. Forgive me if there's an obvious answer to my question. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the difference between SG English and UK English is generally small, the accent being perceptibly different. However, this being a written article, rather than a spoken one, is it wrong to use UK Eng over SG Eng? 192.55.54.37 (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Singapore, as a former British colony, generally follows British English (even though American English, with the growing influence of American media, has crept into the common usage). Jappalang (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that fact, being that I also come from another former British Colony. My comment was more of curiosity on why Nyttend insists that SG English be used in preference to UK English when there is very little difference. In fact, now that curiosity has piqued me, what are the exact differences? 192.55.54.37 (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, seems I misunderstood everything. "Singapore English" is not really well-defined here; I kind of doubt you can find many who can tell you the rules that point to the differences between it and British or US English. Scholarly attempts to define it are fairly recent, such as this. In any case, the root of <insert>Singapore</insert> English (the "proper form" so as to speak) is British English, and it might be wiser to stick to it. On a bureaucratic note, the Manual of Style requests for it to be so (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles)#Spelling). Jappalang (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

However, Modern British English is not the root of English. If you want a root for English, you will have to go back to Old English, and no one speaks that anymore. If you are saying that British English is correct, simply because of the land they live on, then you are deluding yourself - Most Americans, Australians, and British all descend from the same people. One could argue that the most native speakers speak American English, and therefor is the main English, but you see how that sounds, don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.87.110 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What we are discussing on is that British English is the most preferable for this situation, as 1. Singapore was a former British Colony, 2. British English is the form of English taught in schools. We are not arguing on whether it should be the dominant form of English on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Besides, American English was derived from British English that was brought to the 13 colonies, so if you want, a living root of English would still be British English, being that Old and Middle English are essentially dead. 192.55.54.37 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

216.116.87.110, I missed out a word above (see the insert tags). My intention was not to claim the root for English was British English, but for Singapore English (the wonders of a missing word; that is why proper grammar is important, and why we should always remind ourselves to check our edits a few times before clicking "Save page"...). Everyone, let us just get back to topic. Singapore English is derived from British English, but without a concrete definition, it was best for Singaporean articles to be written in British English. Jappalang (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Kali

The note in the references about Kali seems a bit disingenuous given the Thuggees. --129.49.7.125 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources are talking about the majority who worship Kali ("not the norm ... to make blood offerings"), which includes the common folks in India. Kali is not a goddess restricted to cults. Jappalang (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect exchange rates

The exchange rates in this article are all wrong. 1 USD is worth more than 1 SGD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.77.41.107 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Where exactly in the article has the USD been stated to be less than 1 SGD? Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the exchange rates used show the USD being about 2 times less than the SGD. "S$6,000–7,000 (US$12,675–14,787)", "$10,000 of the $159,340[63] (US$21,141 of US$336,871)" and "$130,000 (US$224,791)". Worse is that the rates are not consistent amongst themselves. HumphreyW (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I see... They were inverted... Funny how everyone missed that... Corrected.[2] As for the rates, they are taken at different years. Please check the footnotes. Jappalang (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)