Talk:Neville Roy Singham

Uyghur propaganda investigation
Recent news article https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/the-big-business-of-uyghur-genocide-denial/ probably should make it in here. Need to double-check New Lines' general reliability as a source: founded in 2020, so it's a recent publication and thus I wouldn't assume reliability the way I would for a more tenured publication. Core claim: "[O]ver the past five years almost $65 million has filtered through various entities connected with people who have defended the Chinese government and downplayed or denied documented human rights violations committed by Beijing against the Uyghur and Turkic Muslim minorities. This funding has moved through a complex series of mostly tax-deductible investment funds and charities, all linked by virtue of their governance structures to one man: the 67-year-old American tech magnate Neville Roy Singham."

Potential new source
BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Where he lives
Shouldn't we mention where he lives in this article? Doesn't he live in mainland China? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinion or fact?
Singham has helped fund causes and groups that promote pro-Chinese government messages, and others which oppose NATO expansion and U.S. aid to Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion.

Without neutral phrasing and corroborating reference, it becomes an opinion and not fact. And it is libel. I made this change, but an editor changed it back. So my question is, is Wikipedia going to give opinions on people now? especially living ones? Simplyarnab (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For me, the Ukraine bit is not clearly verified in the article, and I don't see that in the NYT article either. Simplyarnab, you are incorrect: it was neutrally phrased, and whether it's a fact or not is actually not dependent on tone. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. tone matters, because it creates perception. Hence the difference between editorial content and news reports. Wikipedia cannot take an editorial approach.
 * 2. There is no fact without documented corroboration. And for events that are still unfolding, there is NO FACT, only what has been reported.
 * Anyways, this issue seems to have been resolved as more edits have been made to the page. So I consider the matter resolved. Simplyarnab (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)