Talk:Teoh Beng Hock

Untitled
TBH was said to be freed at 3:45AM. Who made that statement? I think we should state the source of this info. Bengyap (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
I'm afraid that in this series of edits, non-free content was introduced into this article in a manner inconsistent with our copyright and non-free content policies. For some examples, please see withint he collapse.


 * The article says:
 * "The Coroner's Court here on November 10, 2009 ordered the body of Teoh Beng Hock, who was laid to rest more than three months previously, to be exhumed on November 21 so that a second post-mortem on him."
 * The source says:
 * "The Coroner's Court here today ordered the body of the late Teoh Beng Hock, who was laid to rest more than three months ago, to be exhumed on Nov 21 so that a second post-mortem on him can be carried out the next day."


 * The article says:
 * "Teoh Beng Hock's parents have ruled out any possibility that their son may have committed suicide, claiming that he was always happy and had already set out a wedding date with his fiance."
 * The source says:
 * "THE parents of Teoh Beng Hock have ruled out any possibility that their son may have committed suicide, claiming that he was always happy."


 * The article says:
 * "Two officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on January 1, 2010 lodged police reports against the “Suara Keadilan” newspaper and pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand over an article which confirmed as murder the death of Selangor political aide Teoh Beng Hock. for allegedly leaking contents from the report of the second autopsy carried out on November 22, 2009."
 * The source says:
 * "Two officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) today lodged police reports against the “Suara Keadilan” tabloid newspaper and pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand of Thailand over an article which confirmed as murder the death of Selangor political aide Teoh Beng Hock...."
 * This source adds:
 * "for allegedly leaking contents from the report of the second autopsy carried out last Nov 22."


 * The article says:
 * "A inquest into the circumstances leading to the death of Teoh Beng Hock, that was scheduled on December 17, 2009 has been postponed to Jan 7, according to Gobind Singh Deo, lawyer for the Teoh family."
 * This source says:
 * "The inquest into the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock, which was scheduled to resume today, has been postponed again, to Jan 7, according to Gobind Singh Deo, lawyer for the Teoh family."

I've stopped looking in this article at this point. There may be more phrases. I was just spot-checking for duplicated sentences and phrases.

The careful sourcing suggests that this was entirely in good faith.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. I have reverted the article to the point immediately prior to this influx of material. In order to avoid issues with Wikipedia's copyright policies, the material should be rewritten in completely original language (although brief, clearly marked quotations may be included in accordance with non-free content guidelines) before it is restored. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know at my talk page if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will reinstate the information that you have removed and have started to rewrite parts of the sentences . Normally in this situation there is no need for drastic measures such as removal of the information wholesale.  I have taken note of your concerns.Roman888 (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the normal practice is to remove the information wholesale. You're lucky Moonriddengirl didn't delete the versions as well. There was no need to reinstate a copyright violation for even one minute. You could have printed off the old version from history and put it on the desk in front of you. Franamax (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I disagree with you regarding the removal of information wholesale in this instance. I have also faced many situations such as this, which leads to edit-warring situations.  Normally I would sit down with the individuals concern and discuss the sentences which are of a concern to them and make the necessary corrections.  I have a right to revert the thing and make the corrections to fast-track someone's concerns if needs be.  Roman888 (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As explained above, you do have the option to rewrite content removed for copyright concerns before restoring it, but you do not have a right to revert copyright violations and restore them to publication even temporarily. Such future behavior in the future is likely to lead to your being blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Beng Hock's purported suicide note?
Something is glaringly missing from this article, i.e. the suicide note found inside the deceased's bag. There was a lot of talk going on whether it was really a suicide note or not, hence I think it should be included in this article. An analysis can be seen here http://www.aizuddindanian.com/voi/2010/09/teoh-beng-hocks-suicide-note.html

But due to the nature of blogs being inadmissible as reliable reference, I would not include it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.120 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Teoh Beng Hock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090720193218/http://www.mmail.com.my:80/content/8388-death-teoh-beng-hock-mystery-waiting-be-solved to http://mmail.com.my/content/8388-death-teoh-beng-hock-mystery-waiting-be-solved
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090722140959/http://www.nst.com.my:80/Current_News/NST/articles/20090718013141/Article/index_html to http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/20090718013141/Article/index_html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723145211/http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com:80/2011/07/21/teohs-sister-my-brother-was-murdered/ to http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/07/21/teohs-sister-my-brother-was-murdered/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723184316/http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com:80/2011/07/22/ngos-rci-report-pathetic-and-a-whitewash/ to http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/07/22/ngos-rci-report-pathetic-and-a-whitewash/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Teoh Beng Hock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723151359/http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com:80/2011/07/21/rci-teoh-committed-suicide/ to http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/07/21/rci-teoh-committed-suicide/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205162927/http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/07/23/najib-dont-dispute-rci-report-on-teoh/ to http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/07/23/najib-dont-dispute-rci-report-on-teoh/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)