This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Singapore C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is heavily biased in favour of conspiracy theories. All of the sources favour the theory that there is complicity in the case and that the authorities are incompetent. The main source of these accusations, The Financial Times, is also cited disproportionately, with one article cited at least 16 times. Please do not remove the tag until this is corrected and both sides are presented. --2001:630:12:242C:DDC9:D8CC:FC9A:5F47 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have suggestions for sources that present conflicting evidence? TheBlueCanoe 02:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm not the person making the first comment and I didn't help write this article either. But I think we should all wait until after the Coroner's inquiry before making any major edits to this article. Singapore mainstream press has broke this story to the Singaporean public already, so I believe they will naturally follow up and publish more articles after the inquiry, which could hopefully then, give more information that could be used to balance the point of view. Perhaps this article could use a tag to state that it covers an ongoing event... 202.166.80.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Police Force's Media Releases

[1]

Institute of Microelectronics News Releases

[2]

Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Releases

[3]

202.166.80.105 (talk)

Well, the articles cited in "Death of Shane Todd", which you purport are supporting a "conspiracy theory", are from numerous notable mainstream news sources (including CNN, CBS, Financial Times, BBC, Fox News, Business Week, Washington Times, New York Times, USA Today). It is highly unlikely that several mainstream news sources (which are independent from each other) coincidentally write an article in a similar vein based on the information available.

Furthermore, press freedom in Singapore is questionable, especially when it involves a government agency. The government does exercise control over the mainstream news sources [4], and Singapore was ranked as #149 by Reporters without Borders in 2013 [5]. Also note that Singapore was ranked as #135 in 2011-2012 i.e. it has fallen a further 14 places in 2013.

As such, I do question the integrity of the Singaporean news sources cited in the "Death of Shane Todd" article. I also do question the integrity of the media releases from the respective government agencies that the author cites in this talk.

My conclusion is that the "Death of Shane Todd" article should be kept as is, and any other viewpoint must be backed up by some reference(s) (preferably from reliable sources).

Ablok22 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article stands, it uses only ONE SINGLE news source from the Singapore press, headlined "Is it suicide or is it murder?"; Not much different from those of the other non-Singapore sources listed which ask similar questions. No one single source has made a definitive stand so far. In reading the Straits Times article, it is just a report on the Financial Times article, and seems quite neutral covering both possibilities of suicide/murder. As such, the suggestion that the Singapore press has been unfair with regards to this case is unfair. Of course Ablok22 is very welcome to pose this question to WP:RS and let the community decide if the source is reliable/fair in this case. In the meantime, please keep the discussion "professional". An advice to both talk and Ablok22: frivolous POV accusations tend to BOOMERANG. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the write up in the "Death of Shane Todd" wiki is just a summary of articles from mainstream news. References (~20 of them) have been provided for nearly every point that is made. I am not trying to be defensive here, but in order for us to proceed in a productive manner, you need to be more specific as to WHICH particular part(s) you take issue with. Making general statements such as 'please keep the discussion "professional"' or 'This article is heavily biased in favour of conspiracy theories' does not help in figuring out the problem.

As for the statements regarding the Singapore press: that is a statement made based on the ranking from the above source (I have provided a reference). In addition, the write up in [6] does support this claim too

Ablok22 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ablok22 , I am pointing out the fact that you seem quite hard up on putting down the one single quoted Singapore source (Which you continue to re-iterate in your response). Despite the fact that it was only used one, and the writeup was neutral. As I said. If you think that even that one single source is biased, feel free to raise it up to WP:RS. we have such facilities for a reason. My comment about being professional and WP:BOOMERANG is actually addressed to you and the IP editor as both of you seem to have a pre-disposed deposition on how the article should be slanted except from opposing sides.

PS: Please add additional semicolens to your replies in future so that it gets differentiated from the response below. Its a minor quibble but makes it easier for the rest to understand the conversation)Zhanzhao (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really apologize if I did come across having any pre-disposition. When I edited the page, I only added what was reported by multiple news sources (references were included). You have every right to edit the page as you want to (as long as it is backed up by a credible reference).

As for the Singapore press, I have no issue whatsoever with a Singaporean news source being added as a reference. However, when selecting my news sources for this particular wiki write up on Shane Todd, I do take into account of the fact that the Singapore media is partly controlled by the government of Singapore [7]. Particularly, since the Shane Todd case involves Singaporean government agencies (SPF and IME), Huawei, the FBI, and several politicians from both countries, it seems a lot more appropriate to pick a news organization that is as independent as possible (with respect to these entities). And the references in the Shane Todd write up includes many such independent sources (BBC, Financial Times, Reuters, CNN, The New York Times, to name a few). Remember, I have no ill intentions here. All I am saying is include a source that is least likely to be biased. If you feel that a part of the write up is biased, please edit it as you deem necessary (with a proper reference and comment). This is wikipedia after all, and the wiki community will critique any addition/removal made to any article.

Ablok22 (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the questions that come to my mind when studying this case are:- 1. Why was Dr. Shane Todd staying in the Chinatown district of Singapore? How many Western expatriates in Singapore are residents of Singapore's Chinatown? 2. The lead investigating officer in this case is a detective by the name of Muhammad Khaldun. Why is a Malay or Indian Muslim detective placed in charge of a murder in Chinatown? 3. If there had been a struggle in Dr. Shane Todd's apartment on the day / night he died, would not his neighbors have heard something? 4. Why was the front door to Dr. Shane Todd's apartment unlocked at the time when his girlfriend found his body? If Dr. Todd was planning to kill himself, and he was drilling holes in his bathroom wall to construct a pulley system, would he leave his front door unlocked?

I shall take a stab at answering these questions because they may clarify the situation for some discussants:

1. Chinatown is the old downtown area where Chinese immigrants used to live. Singapore is now 75-80% Chinese and Chinatown now hosts malls, businesses and small residential apartments. Many expatriates live there because it's next to the central business district and the waterfront. We may justifiably treat Dr Todd as an expatriate, so there are good speculative reasons. I have no idea how many Western expatriates live there, though. How do you think we might find out?

2. Singapore is multiracial and has a very low racial intolerance level (at least publicly). A recent study (see linked pdf, abstract here ^[1]) showed Singapore to be the least racist of all the countries surveyed. Reasons for the choice of lead IO may be adduced from reading this: ^[2].

3. In Chinatown?? But that would be speculative.

4. That would be speculation too.

Brythain (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still have issues?

I was wondering if there's an ongoing NPOV dispute here, and if so, could someone summarize the main points where there's disagreement? TheBlueCanoe 23:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the NPOV template message on the page, since there's been no reply indicating the presence of an ongoing dispute. TheBlueCanoe 21:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We won't see results for about a month, but this is definitely something to keep an eye on[8]. TheBlueCanoe 20:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the reports of the coroner's inquiry, it's starting to look more and more like the Todds are lying and/or in denial - (1) Mom said she found a hard disk missed by the Singapore Police in Shane's apartment when it was actually given to them by the Singapore Police after they found it irrelevant to Shane's death, (2) the person who accessed the hard drive after Shane died is a Singapore Police officer... etc.

It's still early on the inquiry, and the Todds' team have yet to present their case in court, but let's just say, if this turns out to be a non-issue but a big lie by the Todds, then is this article still relevant to Wikipedia? Curious. 16:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.115.130 (talk)

It's premature to declare that the case is coming apart on the basis of the hard drive evidence, or the fact that Todd was suffering from depression (already well known before the inquiry began). Since the inquiry is ongoing, it's also important to try to maintain balanced coverage and to reserve judgement. TheBlueCanoe 00:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, a lot of edits in the inquiry are being made on what is clearly a still developing situation. As I understand it, it will be over in a week or two. I suggest we wait till then before making major edits. What do you think?Electricbulb (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I followed the day-to-day format, as I felt was the best way to prevent undue weight which might occur if we were to break the inquiry down topically. Also its easier to keep track of the happenings of the inquiry on a day-to-day basis now as compared to trying to do so after the inquiry. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's a lop of overlap between these 2 sections; a lot of points made before the inquiry (which are going into the "Inconsistencies" section are actually getting a more thorough investigation/mention/explanation during the inquiries itself. (i.e. the strangulation claim/recanting, the story behind the hard disk). Might need a bit of cleanup to prevent excessive duplication of content, but I guess this could wait till the whole inquiry is over. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suggest waiting for a result, and then if you could, maybe give a proposal for how you would hope to consolidate the material. The inquiry is limited in scope to examining the cause of death, not the other inconsistencies that were documented, so I'm actually not sure how much overlap there is.TheBlueCanoe 11:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I had to revert some questionable edits as they were not substantiated withh any sources at all, making them more akin to original research. I know this topic might be personal for some, but policies should still be followed. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last few edits involved the [same content] being removed even though they were properly sourced, with no reason given for the removal. Given that the removing editors keep repeating the same act and are IPs, (I made a note to them on their TALK pages, not sure if they even pay attention to them), if this continues we might have to escalate this to page protection against IP editors. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one of the IP's edits as it appeared to be a deliberate typo, but for some reason the IP reverted it back to the typoed revision. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Singapore Coroner Inquiry section is a bit
  too long and too much detail. It seems to be written by an insider rather than from someone who takes a neutral stand. Especially the last paragraph calling about the verdict, in which the writer tried to emphasis the point. This seems to indicate this writer is politically motivated. Wiki should not allow a writer to write with a political preference of his own. 99.14.134.134 (talk)

First off, the inquiry section was written during the actual inquiry itself, hence the detail (clear as day from the edit history). And were referenced from publicly available sources, so any talk of insider knowledge belongs to the realms of conspiracy theories. As for the last part paragraph, many sections of the article had been edited by multiple editors, as obviously seen from the edit history; I hope you are not suggesting all the different editors were "politically motivated with a political preference". That's a strong accusation to level on a lot of editors. To assume bias or insider knowledge without offering any evidence does point to a personal motivation and preference. From you. Read PETARD . Zhanzhao (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what point was being emphasized. The verdict? Or the rationale of the judge? The write-up merely stated matter-of-factly the conclusion as well as a closing quote by the judge. Perhaps the IP editor would like to explain himself/herself, as well as suggest how he/she thinks it should be written instead. Rather than hint at some conspiracy theory. DanS76 (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think it is better to include an ending statement that says that Todd's family is still pursuing for further investigation. Shane Todd is a person,
  not a government per se. So the coroner's verdict should not be the end statement of "Death of Shane Todd" wiki page. The ending statement of this wiki page should be an open ended one. Then it will clearly show that wiki is taking a neutral stand for future events that may uncover.User:71.246.51.12271.246.51.122 (talk)

Thats because the content in question is just the section for the inquiry only, and covers only the chronological reporting of the inquiry. And said inquiry ends at the announcement of the verdict. A quick check of other such articles show a similar treatment. What seems to be standard procedure, instead, iis to add a separate subsection called "Aftermath" or "reaction" to the verdict. The problem here being that the deceased's family issued the statement about what they did and intend to do when they walked out ( which is already covered in the article), and have not followed up on it. Or at least nothing has been reported about what they are doing from what I see of the recent reports from BBC and Reuters which covered the verdict announcement. However, editors should feel free to add on as long as they can maintain NPOV while providing verifiable sources. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted some of Theinsidefacts's last few edits as they were referencing 2 documents that were uploaded on some freehosting site (maybe by the editor him/herself? Maybe not?). There is no way to verify if the documents are genuine as of now, not unless its being reported by a third party. I've dropped a note on the editor's talk page about WP:SPS just in case. Til we can verify the authenicity of the codument, and in a way that we can source reliably, its best to keep it away for now. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note with interest that, assuming the documents are genuine, the editor seems to be quite close to the subject matter, seeing that what has been uploaded [[9]] seems to be some form of personal correspondence with the doctor who allegedly created the report, rather than an official report. Plus also the identity of the other party seems to be masked in the same correspondence, which means the original document might have been edited. I think this is a case for WP:RS as well as WP:COI. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, any potential conflict of interest is an unnecessary side issue here. The document linked above cannot be cited as a source, as it is completely impossible to verify its authenticity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Andy. I just brought up COI because, ironically, I was being accused of it. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead in is now overly detailed. Will try to shorten it to keep the gist, but any help shortening it is welcome in the meantime. Zhanzhao (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]