Talk:Execution of Tangaraju Suppiah

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. (April 2023)
the trial of Tangaraju Suppiah seems to have generated zero media coverage in 2017, therefore the details of the events leading to his conviction can only be found in the actual judgement (https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2018_SGHC_279) and background / bio information mostly comes from his own family (https://learningfromthemargins.substack.com/p/if-i-could-give-my-life-in-exchange), there is no other way a proper article could be sourced except from these two items WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @NelsonLee20042020 Could you please stop removing the maintenance templates from this page for its reliance on WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY sources until these issues have been resolved. These templates help alert editors to these issues so they can fix them. In case you are not sure what I'm referring to, I am talking about the heavy use of court documents and substack posts. I am also concerned about the copyvio on this page - see: Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, sir. I disagree with you, because the appeals and the aftermath, inclusive of his efforts to seek clemency before execution was not reliant on the primary source (court documents), and it's only the trial and events leading up to his arrest that came from the court docs. I can remove the substack of it does not sit well with you, but you can consider giving me a leeway at least since no secondary sources about his trial at that time can be found NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY is quite clear that editors should be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources, which this article still does. I see you have reverted again, and I do not wish to start an edit war. I'll now need to take this to a centralised noticeboard. I'll notify you when I've done so. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been editing it at this moment, see if I can summerize the points of the trial and events. Sorry if I offend you, but I am not free at the moment to make the major edits. Pardon if my reaction is not the best expected from the wikieditor. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you allow me some time to edit it first before you review and see if its not up to your expectation before you comment further on the issue in the talk page. I do not like to spark a conflict here too. Plus my exams is around the corner, so I might not reply to you immediately to adequately address your response NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And another thing. The judge had a lot of points to write when she found the accused guilty in this case, so it may not be easy to shorten it further since shorten it too much might not be helpful or clear to present how the judge find the accused guilty of drug trafficking. Pardon if I could not rectify it like you wish NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing and language
This article uses antiquated and offensive language that should be removed, e.g. "...sufficient to feed 150 abusers for a week". Singapore's drug laws might be from the 1950s, but that doesn't mean an article about one of its victims should use language that belongs in that era. "Drug abuser" is both a weasel term and offensive to people who use what in the case of cannabis is a legal drug in an increasingly sizeable portion of the world. Just as concerning is the fact that large parts of this article have been taken directly from court judgements and assertions from judges and prosecutors, an unreliable source in the best of times. This article needs to be scrapped and rewritten from a NPOV. Khardankov (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)