Jump to content

Talk:1999 Bukit Timah kidnapping

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SafariScribe (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 12 May 2024 (SafariScribe moved page Talk:Vincent Lee Chuan Leong to Talk:1999 Bukit Timah kidnapping: Perform requested move, see talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Requested move 22 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 1999 Bukit Timah kidnapping and 1999 Singapore kidnapping becomes a redirect .. The consensus was to move to an alternate title 1999 Bukit Timah kidnapping and 1999 Singapore kidnapping becomes a redirect since it was also good to go. This was supported by the nominator Robertsky, User:Tollens, User:Primefac, KN2731 (for the alternate), and User:NelsonLee20042020. I gave no weight to PARAKANYAA and Cameron Dewe while their argument was not sustained by the oversight and Tollens reply. This is the best I have as well as the much opposition of creating a WP:BLP1E article. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Lee Chuan Leong → 1999 Singapore kidnapping case – The current title is effectively WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. "Kidnapping of X" may not work given that the victim's name is generally not available outside, and even if so, we should generally avoid naming the victim here was 14yo when it happened. The proposed title is a descriptive one, and if there is a better alternative title, I am amenable to the proposed title as well. – robertsky (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Tollens (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Was this the only kidnapping in Singapore in 1999? If not, then it's a poor title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It very likely was, and if not it's certainly the only remotely high-profile case that year. Kidnappings are very rare in Singapore, and it has quite a small population. Tollens (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. I just did a search on Newslink (local news database accessible via local library membership), there was another 'kidnap' case in May 1999, but it turned out to be an extortion after the kid wanted to skip school:
    Chin Theam Lai, 20, agreed to help his 15-year-old friend, David (not his real name), fake his own kidnap. (The boy cannot be named because of his age.) Why? So they could extort money from David's father. ... The plot began on May 3 when David decided to skip school and asked Chin [sic]
    - Kidnap, they wrote : Plot hatched on the back of fast-food tray liner, The Newpaper, 08/10/1999 (extract is 10% of the actual text, 52/537)
    It was resolved pretty fast, with Chin arrested on the following day after the police tracked down the calls Chin made over the two days. Chin was charged with extortion and pleaded guilty. – robertsky (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure how I didn't notice this before, but the article states:

    The kidnapping was the first reported kidnapping case to occur in Singapore in a decade. The last case of kidnapping happened in April 1989, when 56-year-old goldsmith Phang Tee Wah was kidnapped by two men – 50-year-old Ibrahim Masod and 44-year-old Liow Han Heng – and later killed, and the men also attempted to extort ransom despite the death of Phang.

    It appears well sourced. Obviously this doesn't exclude any potential kidnappings after September, which is when that article was published, however. Tollens (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't any kidnapping sep to dec 1999 in Singapore. – robertsky (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and WikiProject Singapore have been notified of this discussion. asilvering (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't support move. This article is quite weird. It's about a kidnapping but very little detail on the actual kidnapping. Given the victim's age she shouldn't be named but to have no detail is odd if it's to be an event article. I think it would probably be better off staying as an article on the guy who did it in that case - if we can't have any information on the actual event due to privacy concerns. An event/crime article requires a section on the crime itself, not just the background of it, and since this was entirely removed and oversighted, no. This would be more confusing event-based. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't support move, because as the creator of the article in question, it is about the kidnapper Mr Lee, who is paroled and released since 2020, and the content leans more to him, the mastermind of the kidnapping and his personal life prior and after his incarceration. Plus there is no doubts raised over the notability of the crime back in 1999 and its aftermath and context. The proposed title is not really ideal for me, and I would, alternatively if the result is move, rename it as Vincent Lee Chuan Leong case or Vincent Lee case or its official court title Public Prosecutor v Vincent Lee Chuan Leong. Still, I affirm my stance that it should not be moved in general. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current title makes the article a violation of BLP1E. The parole and release is just a consequence of the ruling. I am amenable to using the case name as the title as well provided that the legal significance of the case as a case law has been clearly stated, ie it being used as a precedence in subsequent case. – robertsky (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering detail on the event is privacy violating when it comes to the victim I think that would be good enough reason to keep it on the perpetrator in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giving it a generic name such as '1999 Singapore kidnapping' or 'PP v Vincent Lee Chuan Leong' is better than pretending that this is a biography when it is about the kidnapping and the aftermath and yet still respecting the privacy of the victim. Of course there may be occasional reinclusion of the victim's details, but it will happen regardless of the article title. And this can be managed via other means such as setting the editing protection of the article if it has been done so in bad faith repeatedly. – robertsky (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to an alternative title of Vincent Lee kidnapping case. I agree that this article should be focused on the kidnapping case rather than the mastermind. However, I do not agree with the suggested title of '1999 Singapore kidnapping case'. In my opinion, even if there were indeed no other kidnappings in Singapore that year, the suggested title still feels vague and incomplete. --Blissfulclarity (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will introduce a confusion in who was being kidnapped as the other (few) articles with this title format are of "[victim name] kidnapping case" format: Lindbergh kidnapping, and Geeta and Sanjay Chopra kidnapping case. There was also another Singapore kidnapping which article uses an association of the victim as the title, Sheng Siong kidnapping. – robertsky (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my stance as stated in the earlier comments, but as a suggestion, 1999 Bukit Timah kidnapping can a bit more specific without being too generic. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OVERPRECISION, given we've established above there were no other kidnappings in Singapore in 1999. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned previously, my opinion is that the title 1999 Singapore kidnapping still feels incomplete. While there is factually no ambiguity in the title as there is only one kidnapping in Singapore that year, the title still gives the impression of ambiguity. I would prefer Nelson's suggested title of 1999 Bukit Timah kidnapping. --Blissfulclarity (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On some content being oversighted. Not relevant to the RM discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Plus, I remember I included information about the victim, including her name that was recorded in court documents but not in media. I believe someone who previously edited the article must have removed the name and her later life after the kidnapping. I might have to reconsider adding back in NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not re-add the name. The victim has asked us to leave it out of the article, and given her age at the time, it should not have been mentioned in the article anyways. The revisions containing her name have all been oversighted. Tollens (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wait what? you happen to know the victim?? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not personally, no. They made the request on-wiki and I have no reason to doubt that they are who they claim to be, however. Tollens (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I apologise, because I did not read your messages until only at the present, and I kinda added back the name but glad that you took it off and leave my other edits on the article itself. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I assumed that's what happened. I've emailed the Oversight team to have it redacted from the page history again. I am not sure if they will want to remove more than I already did, but I would think that what you've added (excluding what I removed) would probably be acceptable to include. Tollens (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revdelled the affected revisions for now while OS team process your email. – robertsky (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of people's privacy, especially minors, best to leave names and such details found only in court documents out of it. I agree the article should stay at the title it's at, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name was removed, revdelled, and then oversighted (as admin, I am not able to see the revision history of the edits containing the name) as it had happened when she was a minor. Her identity is not required here to establish the notability of the case. Also the victim had appealed for the removal of the name from the article. Any similar reinclusion will likely be dealt with the same expediency.
Well, if we aren't supposed to have any content about the event itself, it feels pretty jarring to have a supposedly "event" based article. Also, how is this referred to in Chinese? The title should be analogous to it, at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only detail that we shouldn't have is the name, really. Just about anything else should be fine, so long as the victim isn't identified. Tollens (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the entire section about the kidnapping was wiped when it was removed, so the administrators apparently decided that was not the case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I didn't see the revisions before they were deleted so I was unaware that there was more than just the name removed. I'm not sure why details of the event wouldn't be appropriate here. If we aren't able to talk about the event at all I agree the page should be left here, but if we can include information about it that maintains the victim's privacy I still support the move. Tollens (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it was part of the content removed and oversighted as violating her privacy, it should stay on the perpetrator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just responding to the "entire section" bit - suppression was requested after the content had been removed from the page, so the entire diffs were suppressed. Had suppression been requested when the name was still in the live article, I suspect just the name (and any related details) would have been excised much as Tollens did in the most recent trimming. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: A weak consensus to move is emerging, but there's 3 different titles aside from the original proposed one and little discussion between participants on those titles. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For brevity:
– robertsky (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing my opinion out there: I don't mind either of the first three titles in the list above. I would prefer the first or second equally, "case" seems redundant but not so much so that I would oppose a move there. I agree with robertsky that "Vincent Lee kidnapping case" makes it seem as if Vincent Lee was kidnapped, which is not the case, so I would oppose a move there. I still support a move overall; the perpetrator here fails both points outlined in WP:CRIMINAL and so should not be the subject of an article.
PARAKANYAA, your concern was about lacking enough information for an event-based article: now that detail on the crime itself has been restored, and it's been clarified by a member of the OS team that its inclusion is fine, do you still object to the move? Tollens (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well have an opinion given that this isn't going places very fast - I agree with Tollens about the first two being the top choices. The first is more specific (which would help if there were more than one kidnapping that year) while the second is a location that everyone will know (i.e. it will be a more obvious search term). I therefore lean very slightly towards the second option, though I think whichever is chosen there should be a redirect from the other one for completeness. Primefac (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move. The subject of the article has moved from being a suspect in the kidnapping to being a convicted criminal. While WP:BLPCRIME advises against writing a biographies about people accused of crimes, it says nothing about writing those biographies once the people concerned have been convicted of crimes they are accused of. A Perpetrator can have an article written about them if they play a major role in a notable crime, and the crime does not already have an existing article. In this case, writing about the kidnapping of the victim would seem potentially harmful as well as impractical. So we are left with a biographic article about the perpetrator as the best alternative. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that BLPCRIME does not apply here. WP:CRIMINAL, however, does. The subject of this article is not a renowned figure nor was this crime a historic event with sustained coverage devoted to his role in the kidnapping. The article about the kidnapping is essentially already written as well, I don't see what would be impractical about a move. All I can see that would need to be changed is the removal of the "Personal life" and "Lee's imprisonment, release, and later life" sections. The victim themself has stated that an article on the kidnapping is fine, just not the inclusion of their name - avoiding harm is simply not a reason not to move the article, because the harm has already been avoided. Tollens (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1999_Bukit_Timah_kidnapping&oldid=1223529888"