Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Koh Tao murders/archive1

Aside
I wrote up some text based on the court judgement but first wanted to ask if you know whether a court document can be used in this context? Per WP:BLPPRIMARY (Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.) I'm thinking maybe for the two deceased persons, but unsure about the two convicted individuals? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you can use it, but not necessarily for claims regarding the living people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from JusticeForDavidMiller
I was contacted about this article back in January or February. I was emailed again a few days ago. This article needs to be removed from FAC; it may even need to be put up for deletion. It's horribly wrong.

1. The "Reaction" section.

This section tells us that "the investigation was met with criticism by international media, human rights groups, and legal experts". It explains that "practically no one believes [the Burmese pair] brutally murdered the English tourists".

And yet on December 24 2015 -- the day when the verdict was delivered -- someone stood outside the Samui courthouse and said this:

'''Concern for the accused has been widespread. A petition was organized and funds were raised for their benefit. A group of activists became involved and has promoted their cause vigorously to the media. Ultimately, Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo have obtained the possible representation in court, by a team of seven top lawyers.'''

'''Over the last few months we have attended many of the court sittings, and we have gained real respect for this court. The judges have been invariably diligent, attentive, fair, and extraordinarily hardworking. This has been a comfort to us.'''

'''David always stood up for justice, and justice is what has been delivered today. We respect this court and its decision completely.'''

'''As the trial has progressed, we came to realize the police investigation and the forensic work performed was not the so-called shambles it was made out to be. We believe that after a difficult start, the Royal Thai Police conducted a methodical and thorough investigation.'''

'''Having listened carefully to all the evidence, and despite what their lawyers say, it is our opinion that the evidence against Wai Phyo and Zaw Lin is absolutely overwhelming. They raped to satisfy their selfish desires and murdered to cover up that fact. They have shown no remorse during the trial.'''

Initially they confessed for almost two weeks, and then recanted in an attempt to avoid justice.

The man who read this statement -- outside the Samui courthouse on December 24, 2015 (immediately after the verdict was delivered) -- was David Miller's bother.

So how come it's not in the article? How come it's not shown prominently [in a quote box] right at the very top of the Reaction section?

See the second video -- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35173688 -- and you'll understand why your article needs to be completely re-written.

2. Why?

Why did the Miller family disagree so vehemently with the narrative published in left-wing articles. Put another way, why was the world's left-wing media so overtly in favor of the "Burmese Pair", and the Miller family wasn't. Here's why.

2.1. Left Wing Media

The left wing has one core value: harm reduction. This value is especially important when it pertains to marginalized minorities. Do I really need to say any more? Poor, sweet sweet sweet, darling little Burmese. How could these sweet darling little people every commit a crime?

2.2. The British Police

Britain's PM, David Cameron, had a chat with the PM of Thailand. They decided that Britain's Metropolitan Police would send a team to Thailand to check things out. Your article alludes to this. It says the results were never made public. Sure. Cool. Great. What it doesn't say it this:

'''The two leaders agreed that Britain's Metropolitan Police would send a team to Thailand to conduct an independent inquiry. However, as it is British policy not to assist foreign police forces in death penalty cases, the scope of the mission was to observe and record the Thai police investigation.'''

Thai police cooperated fully under the pre-agreed condition that the British team's final report would be shared only with the Witheridge and Miller families. Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/thailand-murder-suspects-cant-have-british-police-report-uk-judge

So now we know the Miller family were privy to knowledge that no one other than the UK government and the Witheridge family had access to. And remember: the Miller family's comments were diametrically opposed to all the shit spouted by scummy left-wing sources.

3. Pornthip Rojanasunand: a Thai forensic scientist

Your article tells me that Ms Pornthip testified ..... yada yada yada. Ever heard of the GT200? They were empty plastic boxes with a pair of antennae attached. SCAM. They were sold as bomb detectors. SCAM. The Brit dude who made them is now in prison. Thailand fell for the scam and bought them. Ms Pornthip vouched for them. Google this and you'll see why Ms Pornthip has less credibility than a dog turd.

4. Archiving

All web sources need to be archived. Like it or not, link rot will kick in sooner rather than later and your [largely worthless] article will suffer.

5. Primary sources

You have nearly 85 sources. About 20% of these links point to an "unofficial translation" of a primary source. Do you really not get this? Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Primary sources are permissible, but in general Wikipedia wants secondary sources that "interpret" primary sources. Your sourcing is just plain wrong. Ask a mod to explain this to you.

6. Conclusion

Withdraw the article. It's not FA standard. It's a bummer. Re-write it. Try again. Better luck next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeForDavidMiller (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for your comments. Some responses:
 * In regards to #1: On the latter quote: no, it only says an opinion piece in the Bangkok Post said that, with intext attribution. It provides helpful context for the background underlying the media reporting. I can add in that the family supported the verdict if I can find a source for it; the one you linked says the brother supported it and the family needed time to digest it.
 * In regards to #2.2: Thanks; I've clarified that British police only went to observe the investigation. I don't see anything else actionable in #2.2 though; implying that Miller's family knew more than everyone else, when the sources don't seem to say that, would be OR. I've added in that the families of the victims got access to the reports, and readers can make their own deductions if they wish.
 * Re #3: Do you have a source contrasting Pornthip's comments against her previous error? Either way, I don't mind removing the single sentence in question, which is: Pornthip Rojanasunand, a Thai forensic scientist, testified at the trial that the crime scene was poorly managed.
 * Re #4: I can run IABot on it, though I don't think future link rot is as much of an issue with Reuters/BBC/NYT/et al. All news sources already have archived versions in web.archive.org.
 * Re #5: They were added per a suggestion above. They didn't really change the article much except to clarify inconsistent details. They are not used for interpretation, but rather just to state a particular party's position (e.g. the prosecution's), for which their usage is reasonable. If anything, it moves the article closer to what seems to be your position, although that position largely doesn't exist in secondary sources. You mention that Wikipedia wants secondary sources, but the vast majority of your comments here are in support of doing OR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * About "left wing sources": The Telegraph is right-wing, and the BBC is politically neutral. They both say the same things and have the same portrayal. Scholarly sources do too. See WP:DUE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

More Comments From Someone Who Lived in Thailand for 20.5 Years
I'm now speechless. Really speechless. I wonder if I'm even living on the same planet as you guys.

Here is ProcrastinatingReader's comment:

'''On the latter quote: no, it only says an opinion piece in the Bangkok Post said that, with intext attribution. It provides helpful context for the background underlying the media reporting. I can add in that the family supported the verdict if I can find a source for it; the one you linked says the brother supported it and the family needed time to digest it.'''

Please notice how ProcrastinatingReader describes my quote as "an opinion piece in the Bangkok Post". Let's go through this again.

Here is my quote:

'''Concern for the accused has been widespread. A petition was organized and funds were raised for their benefit. A group of activists became involved and has promoted their cause vigorously to the media. Ultimately, Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo have obtained the best possible representation in court, by a team of seven top lawyers.'''

'''Over the last few months we have attended many of the court sittings, and we have gained real respect for this court. The judges have been invariably diligent, attentive, fair, and extraordinarily hardworking. This has been a comfort to us.'''

'''David always stood up for justice, and justice is what has been delivered today. We respect this court and its decision completely.'''

'''As the trial has progressed, we came to realize the police investigation and the forensic work performed was not the so-called shambles it was made out to be. We believe that after a difficult start, the Royal Thai Police conducted a methodical and thorough investigation.'''

'''Having listened carefully to all the evidence, and despite what their lawyers say, it is our opinion that the evidence against Wai Phyo and Zaw Lin is absolutely overwhelming. They raped to satisfy their selfish desires and murdered to cover up that fact. They have shown no remorse during the trial.'''

Initially they confessed for almost two weeks, and then recanted in an attempt to avoid justice.

So, boys and girls, here's the punchline: the above quote has NOTHING to do with the Bangkok Post. It's from the BBC.

This is the source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35173688. Watch and listen to the second video.

Yet ProcrastinatingReader says "it only says an opinion piece in the Bangkok Post ...."

Where the EFF is ProcrastinatingReader getting the Bangkok Post from when I'm linking to the BBC?

Do you think that perhaps -- just perhaps -- someone here doesn't know what he's talking about? Simple question, huh?

Let's move forward. This is gonna get worse for ProcrastinatingReader. Much worse. Not my fault. Nothing to do with me. I'm about to show how totally clueless this guy is.

ProcrastinatingReader wrote:

I can add in that the family supported the verdict if I can find a source for it; the one you linked says the brother supported it and the family needed time to digest it.

Well, eh, ProcrastinatingReader has a source. The BBC. This: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35173688

Let's examine ProcrastinatingReader's comment: the brother supported it and the family needed time to digest it.

1. Two Brits were murdered on Koh Tao.

2. One was a young man with surname Miller.

3. The other was a young woman with the surname Witheridge.

So two families were involved: Miller and Witheridge.

Let's look again at the BBC article:

The family of Mr Miller attended the hearing but relatives of Miss Witheridge did not travel to Thailand for the verdicts.

Her family said the verdict had left them "in the path of a whirlwind of emotions and difficulties".

In a statement they said: "The past year has served as an unimaginably impossible time for our family. We have found the trial process extremely difficult and our trips out to Thailand, to attend court, made for particularly distressing experiences.

"We found listening to proceedings very challenging and we have had to endure a lot of painful and confusing information. We now need time, as a family, to digest the outcome of the trial and figure out the most appropriate way to tell our story."

The key comment is "digest the outcome of the trial". This comment was made by the Witheridge family -- the family of the murdered girl.

ProcrastinatingReader writes: "the one you linked says the brother supported it and the family needed time to digest it". '''Do you see how ProcrastinatingReader can't even differentiate between the family of the murdered boy [Miller] and the family of the raped and murdered girl [Witheridge]. ''' This article is a disgrace. The author (who conjured this article out of thin air back in January) seems not to have a clue about any of this.

In its current form, this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.


 * ”The latter quote” I was referring to was you writing It [This section] explains that "practically no one believes [the Burmese pair] brutally murdered the English tourists". -— the article says An opinion piece in Bangkok Post wrote that "practically no one believes [Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo] really brutally murdered English tourists". The imperative part is the intext attribution; it’s about the opinion of the source. I’m not going to respond to the rest or anything else you write until you learn basic collegiality. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Moved from the FAC nomination page itself. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)