Talk:Toa Payoh ritual murders

Well done

This is one of the best Wikipedia articles I have ever read and should be a model for an article in any journal or reference. It was more than just a fact1, fact2, fact3 article. The writing is verbose and flows together well.

I commend the editors who collaborated to write this excellent article. Well. Done. --12.155.20.214 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the adticle is generally very well written - well done to all concerned. Other, that is, than for the bit on the making of the films of the murders. Words such as "capitalise" struck me as being odd, and not of a NPV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.180.19 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"purposeful in his pursuits, patient in his planning and persuasive in his performance for personal power and pleasure" - thats a great line, was that translated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.122.244 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Singapore court cases are normally conducted in English. Jappalang (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Siamese sex god Pragngan"

Narayanan's description and spelling of "Siamese sex god Pragngan" are unencyclopedic, misleading and offensive tabloid hype. First, a Phra Ngang ("Holy Fool") is a specific type of amulet depicting the Buddha [1], not some "Siamese sex god". Second, the name is พระงั่ง in Thai, and according to WP:THAI rules should thus be rendered Phra Ngang in RTGS. You can easily verify this by a Google Image search: [2] (English) or [3] (Thai). (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability with reliable sources ("it is not about the truth, but verifiable information"). The sources have reported Adrian Lim as using an idol of Prangnan/Phragann, described as the deity of sex. This is not the place to introduce a Tripod self-authored website to contradict those sources. Please raise reliable sources to back up the changes requested. Jappalang (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Said website is written by Lek Watruak, the executive editor and senior writer of Sian Phra (เศียรพระ) magazine, who has published ~1500 articles and ~10 books on Thai amulets. [4] I would rank his reliability regarding Thai amulets very much higher than that of the only source you've cited, Narayanan. (Incidentally, he's being cited wrong; the NLB gives his name as "N.G.Kutty". [5])

• A tripod site written by a man who claimed himself as the "top famous penname on Thai amulets" for the "most well-known and top-circulationed" without any third-party reliable references is not going to be looked upon as reliable. Considering that he launched several similar websites on other homepage hosting services, e.g. angelfire, geocities,[6] it can be construed that he may not be the expert he claims to be. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches on how reliable sources are evaluated at FACs. Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• N. G. Kutty is Narayanan Govindran Kutty.[7] (click on his name). Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he's being cited as "Narayanan (1989)", when the correct cite would be "Kutty (1989)". Jpatokal (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, a verifiable reliable source that specifically points out Lim is using "Phra Ngang" (or that Pragngan/Phragann are common mistranslations) should be found for those requested changes. To do so otherwise, would be synthesising an original theory. Jappalang (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that there exists a "Siamese sex god" named "Pragngan" (phonologically impossible in Thai), who is different from Phra Ngang?

And to cite WP:SYN and WP:OR is ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out an obvious spelling error. Jpatokal (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, here [8] is a description of the use of Phra Ngang amulets in black magic: Certains pratiquants clairement maléfiques et stupides assimilent la pratique de Phra Ngang avec de la Magie Noire et utilisent des amulettes Phra Ngang de manière absolument répugnante, entre autre en les plaçant dans des protections féminines usagées ou en les introduisant dans le vagin de femmes ayant leurs règles. ("Some clearly evil and stupid practitioners associate Phra Ngang with Black Magic and use the amulet of Phra Ngang in an absolutely repugnant fashion, by by either placing them in used female sanitary pads or by placing them in the woman's vagina") -- precisely matching Kutty's description of Lim's practices. Jpatokal (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can be construed as OR or SYN. Translations are tricky. A missing letter can mean different things and unless it is obvious through reliable sources that two pieces of work (A and B) are talking about the same thing, putting the context of A as the background of B would be OR/SYN.

In this case, we have these works (above) that talk about "Phra Ngang". However, similar sources talk about "Phra Ngan".[9][10] We can infer that they are talking about the same thing with minor differences (although one calls it a former Buddha). Nonetheless, they are unreliable sources by the guidelines and policies here, and should not be used in the text. Hence, we can consider their information but not write it down.

The Thai spelling is พระงั่ง, which is Phra Ngang in RTGS, the WP:THAI standard. Jpatokal (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the reliable source that stated Adrian Lim's idol is Phra Ngang. Jappalang (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The absence of coverage from reliable sources is puzzling. Surely, there must be a curio collector who has published a book on South East Asia, considering the mystique and exotica about it. A search reveals that "Phra Kreung/Khruang" may be the common form of the amulet in Western form. This book tells of how thai amulets are no longer "genuine", but a commercial trade offering lots of "models". It further documents the existence of several amulets and lists the five most expensive, such as "Phra Rod", "Phra Somdet" "Phra Nang Phya", etc. This guide states "Phra Khruang" is the generic name for the amulets and idols sold as charms, while this book calls "Phra Kreung" Buddhist amulets. This links the two names together, as well as relating to the first book. The origins of "Phra Khruang" is attempted in this. The sources suggest the "Phra" is a prefix and not restrictive to the Lord Buddha. This book even splits it further, saying that mini-idols, used as propitiatory figures are tukatas, not "Phra Khruang".

I am convinced by these sources and your words about the Thai language that the spelling is inappropriate, but I am not going to state "Phra Ngan/Ngang" as the idol used by Lim. Without reliable proof or otherwise, whichever idol he used for his rituals may not be the "Phra Ngan/Ngang". The police statements (in Sit's book p. 131) recorded it as "Phragann", which would correspond to the Thai spelling. Narayanan used this form, while it is John who used Pragngan, which you object to. No reliable source can vouch for it as "Phra Gann" or "Phra Ngan", so we should not attempt to do so here. I have reflected this issue in the footnotes and a slight tweak of its first mention,[11] which should hopefully address your concern about this. Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that does not address my concern; if anything, "Phra Gann" is a much worse mangling, and you're not following your own high-falutin' rhetoric since you unilaterally changed the police report's "Phragann" to "Phra Gann". Also, you changed the text to say that "a Siamese deity whom Lim called a sex god" — do you have an actual quote where he says that?

My suggestion: replace references to P*r*g*n in the text body with simply "a/the Thai amulet" (or "Siamese" if you insist), and add the following footnote: Lim used this amulet, which he called a "sex god" [did he?], in his rituals and wore it around his waist during sex. Various translations of its name are found among the sources. John called it as Pragngan, while Kutty cited the police reports, calling it Phragann; these may be corruptions of Phra Ngang (พระงั่ง). Note change from "idol" to "amulet", since an amulet is portable and worn by the user, which was the case here. Jpatokal (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I am not going to introduce original research that changes what the sources have stated. As for what Adrian Lim called his idol, Lim: "My first lesson was about a sex god of Siamese origin, Pragngan. I was taught some Siamese verses and the method of using the god." (John, p. 12–13) This is what I have done.[12] By this, it is clear what the idol was called and whom it was called by. Jappalang (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the context of that quote? Is it an actual verbatim quote of Lim's words in an interview, or a dramatization by the author?

I've also added scare quotes to the first "Phragann" to clarify that the naming is disputed by sources. Jpatokal (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is taken ad verbatim from his police statement. Jappalang (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The same police statement as interpreted by Sit by "Phragann"?? Either they're both listening to audio and making up their own spellings, or one or the other is changing the written transcript. Jpatokal (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Narayanan's spelling corresponds to the transcripts written in Sit's books, which is why it is in this article. Whether John heard or saw the statement, and transcribed it down in a name different from the written versions, based on his assumptions or reasearch, is not for us to analyze and dissect. We do not know what Lim used, other than it was a small idol (figurine) and the name he said, which the sources have reported. This article reflects that per verifiability and reliable sourcing. Any attempt to defend the name of "Phra Ngang" should not be in this article. There is no statement here that eqautes Phragann to Phra Ngang. Anyone that seeks to do so is doing something that is not borne out by the sources (original research). Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping you two can calm down, leave the article about what happened in Singapore in its Singaporean context, and add a condensed subtext as to what it is about this (other than the grisly murders) that offends Thai and Buddhist sensibilities. Do keep in mind what perversion means, and perhaps link to it in the subtext, as I have done here. Strictly for this discussion, I'd like to cast light on "Phra Khruang" and "tukata". The latter is a doll or toy, and in this context, is a pejorative meaning that the object has been perverted into a trinket. "Khruang" used alone means 'engine', but its base meaning is apparatus, as in implements (of a trade or craftsman,) or for a particular purpose, or, very loosely speaking, stuff. "Phra" is a prefix that may also be used similar to a pronoun for some one or thing holy or noble. "Phra Khruang" may be used merely descriptively, or pejoratively depending entirely upon context. To put any subtext in proper context, try to make it clear that perverts think there is a Siamese sex god, and that grisly use of objects considered holy to many, adds its bit to the grisliness of the murders. Pawyilee (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am interested to know what do you mean by adding a "condensed subtext". Can you illustrate with an example here? Do you think this is sufficient to state that the namings and functions of the idol came from the subject and is not a statement of fact? Jappalang (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the article:

Phragann,[fn 4] whom Lim described as a Siamese sex god...,
[fn 4] ^ Lim used a small idol of this god in his rituals, and wore it around his waist during sex. The two main sources differed in their naming of this idol. John referred to it as Pragngan, while Narayanan cited the police reports, calling it Phragann.

I'd use which instead of whom in the article; and in the footnote, use figurine of his god instead of idol of this god, and change the next usage of idol to thing. Since it is already referred to as Siamese, these changes in wording should break the "idol chatter" loose from having to use Thai language or transliteration. I hope. Pawyilee (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so how does this look? Jappalang (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Pawyilee (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be written Phra Ngang. — JoJo • Talk • 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Show the reliable source that states Adrian Lim is referring to that please. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect exchange rates

The exchange rates in this article are all wrong. 1 USD is worth more than 1 SGD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.77.41.107 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Where exactly in the article has the USD been stated to be less than 1 SGD? Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the exchange rates used show the USD being about 2 times less than the SGD. "S$6,000–7,000 (US$12,675–14,787)", "$10,000 of the $159,340[63] (US$21,141 of US$336,871)" and "$130,000 (US$224,791)". Worse is that the rates are not consistent amongst themselves. HumphreyW (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I see... They were inverted... Funny how everyone missed that... Corrected.[13] As for the rates, they are taken at different years. Please check the footnotes. Jappalang (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Police on the scene

UnHoly Trinity (p. 4): "Inspector Pereira was at his office in CID headquarters when he heard that another child has been found dead, He was at the scene within twenty-five minutes just before Inspector Sanmugam Suppiah, who was overall in charge of investigations into the two murders, arrived. [...] The two inspectors and a team of men immediately began searching the area. This time they found the clue they needed so badly: a trail of blood. [...] p.5: He decided to check the seventh level, Inspector Pererira stopped at the very first flat, 467F, and gazed at it for a while. [...] p. 8: Suddenly, Lim's mood changed when some police officers from the Toa Payoh Police Station mentioned something about a rape charge. [...] At 11.25 a.m, Inspector Suppiah told his men to take Lim, Tan and Hoe to CID headquarters for questioning with the murders of the two children."

Suppiah and Pereira are CID, not Toa Payoh policemen. Investigations on the scene are conducted by CID, supported by Toa Payoh officers. Furthermore, it was Pereira (CID) who found Lim's flat. Jappalang (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that the first police officer at scene was from Toa Payoh police station, the first senior investigation officer at scene was also from Toa Payoh police station (who did some initial investigations to ascertain the initial facts) and since this was classified as a murder case, it naturally fell under the jurisdiction of CID's Special Investigation Section. Thus, the divisional officers became support (who would cordon off the scene of crime) to the later arriving CID officers. Many apologies, I was editing with my mind half-asleep just now... please revert what is necessary as I really need to catch some sleep. --Dave1185 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Footnotes section

The recent edits of an IP editor have resulted in:

• malformed tags that disrupted the text, e.g. "Its 16-day run brought in $130,000 (US$75,145),[121]{{#tag:ref|In comparison, the 1996 box-office comedy hit Army Daze took in $500,000 (US$289,017) for its first four days."
• Insertions of the footnotes into the main text disrupted the references: Lim's holy-wife count is referenced to Narayanan; the opening sentences in "Rape and revenge" is however sourced to John. Inserting Narayanan's text broke the reference for the first line to John.
• Disrupt the flow, e.g. insertions of the conversion rates into the text.

Notes are intended to either support the text or to provide the author's comments (for Wikipedia, this needs to be verifiable to a reliable source per policies). I have integrated some of the footnotes but I do not see the point in placing the remaining ones into the main text or removing them totally. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)