Talk:2010 Singapore train depot trespass and vandalism case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Graffiti in Singapore[edit]

[Copied from User talk:Jacklee.] Hello Jacklee,

it would be very great if you could change you wiki-blog on the singaure graffiti sprayer Oliver Fricker in something anonymous. I'm a closed friend of him an it is not so fair to post his full name all over. Don't understand me wrong, what the Swiss guy did was not okay, but what would you do, if some one posts something about you, no matter if right or wrong....? You don't need to delete this article, just change the names of those two guys in "the Swiss" & "the Britain". And some things you have writen on here are defently wrong.... thanks for your understanding :) RDB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettetdiebieber (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rettetdiebieber. First of all, I didn't create this article. However, I think it will be difficult not to mention Fricker's name in the article. As a friend of Fricker I understand your concern, but since he is a notable person and his identity has already been disclosed in the international media, there is really no good reason to keep his name anonymous. This is particularly the case when there is no court order preventing his identity from being revealed. If you disagree, you can ask other Wikipedia editors for their opinion by leaving a message at "Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board" to ask them to discuss the matter here, or post a message at "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay i understand you... his name is all over in the media now and the most of the people think that everthing on Wiki is RIGHT! And thats not true... and so he has now a stamp with a lot of wrong written things on his name... and be true to your self... graffiti is nothing witch should be caned! We have more problems than a sprayed train in Singapure. I think i will get in touch with Wikipedia and then we have a look what we can do on this articel. RDB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettetdiebieber (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that if you feel there are parts of the article that are inaccurate, you can change them, but make sure that you provide reliable references such as newspaper articles to support the information you insert. If you are not sure how to do this, post a message here and someone will come along to help. (I agree with you that there is a case for arguing that caning should not be imposed for an offence like spraying graffiti on a train, but that is not a reason for removing Fricker's name from the article.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that Wikipedia could somehow not mention his name is, of course, a complete non-starter. The suggestion betrays a total lack of understanding of how things work in the world. The whole affair is already just about as in the public domain as it could possibly be. Alarics (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fricker was asking for it! Chris Henniker (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was He Caned?[edit]

The article indicates that, after appeals, the caning was to be carried out, but there is no information on whether it was. This information should be included. As for Mr. Fricker's alleged right of privacy, he has none. While I am sure he would rather us not know about this, he is a public figure involved in a matter that is the subject of worldwide discussion, and he has no "right" to keep it private. See, e.g., Barbieri v. News-Journal Co., 56 Del. 67, 189 A.2d 773 (1963). The last public whipping in Delaware occurred in 1952. Several years later, there was talk of reinstituting whipping as a punishment for crime in Delaware, and a newspaper did a story on the last person to be flogged, and mentioned his name. Naturally annoyed to have all his neighbors and friends find out he was the last person to be horsewhipped in Delaware, he sued for an invasion of privacy. The Delaware Supreme Court rejected his claim, stating that he was a legitimate topic of discussion at the time the whipping was imposed, and he remained so, especially at the time there was talk concerning reinstituting the punishment.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't include that information, because we don't have it. The only reason why he might not have been caned would have been if the prison doctor found him medically unfit to be caned. No announcements were made, and Fricker has (as far as I know) so far chosen to remain silent about his experiences, so we can assume he probably was caned, but we cannot be absolutely certain one way or the other. -- Alarics (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd[edit]

Fixed a few things with the article re: Fricker's accomplice. Interpol don't issue arrest warrants and this was not what was actually reported. Interpol issue red notices and no red notice appears for Lloyd - though this may not mean that one doesn't exist as it appears to depend on the requesting country to publicise the red notice. I can't see why Singapore wouldn't publicise it though. It would be great to find out more information about this. (My hunch is that Interpol told S'pore to eff off and that there was no way they would be complicit in a manhunt for a graffiti artist when the punishment was caning, but we could never know). Can anyone else track down more information? It would be interesting to know how restricted Lloyd is in his movements - can he not visit Singapore, or also China or other countries, for fear of arrest? 121.44.81.69 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because...This case was notable because it is rare for Europeans to be sentenced to caning in Singapore, so it got a lot of publicity internationally. It also brought back into focus the controversial nature of Singapore's use of caning to punish vandalism in spite of the fact that vandalism is only a property crime and does not involve violence against the person -- a controversy first set off in 1994 with the Michael Fay case. --Alarics (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2010 Singapore train depot trespass and vandalism case. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Fricker → 2010 Singapore train depot trespassing and vandalism case – There's significant coverage internationally, thus GNG. However, given a lack of substantial/continued coverage of the subject as a person after his release, we can possibly look at this article as WP:BLP1E. Am open to alternate title suggestions. – robertsky (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am of opinion in should be deleted entirely, as this article is simply irrelevant and continues to be a burden on a living person for a relatively small offense. Yes, technically GNG applies but that generally applies to any foreigner that gets arrested abroad. Especially if they use the media as an instrument in court, in particularly strict countries like Singapore. With that being said, content-wise it remains uninteresting but on an individual level very impactful.
As a compromise I would agree with WP:BLP1E but keeping the current article as is, is not what Wikipedia is meant for. I don't really like the title you are suggesting, as this could then be repeated with other minor offenses e.g. 2022 Singapore ship cabin housebreaking. Again articles like this are not relevant. Oliver Ficker is already mentioned in Caning in Singapore accompanied by some context. I don't think much more is required. Stoepkrijtske (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the outcome and impact on Singapore society is uninteresting to you, given that this incident exposed a security loophole in a key national infrastructure, and the operator sanctioned and fined as a result, and security procedures changed. The failed appeal to reduce the jail sentence that inadvertently increased the jail sentence for transpassing underscores that severity. Rather than just saying you don't like the suggested title, do suggest alternative ones. The suggested title, 2010 Singapore train depot transpassing and vandalism case, is what I can come up with going by WP:NCEVENTS. If there are articles about other (minor) crimes without a significant impact on the society, they can be dealt with separately and expeditiously, and also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. – robertsky (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Incident caused major public outcry (well covered by various sources), security reviews by affected company, similar company and also by government agency (LTA). There is SIGCOV and lasting impact for the trespassing and subsequent vandalism and rightly there should be an article for it. As the current BLP is basically 90% of the incident and based on BLP1E, we should move the article from BLP to incident instead. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with move per BLP1E but would prefer a shorter title per WP:CONCISE. Maybe something like 2010 Singapore train vandalism case? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it needs be, I don't mind the concise title as suggested as well. – robertsky (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and if moved, the article should probably focus less on Fricker as well. Agree it should be a shorter title what KN2731 is fine but open to other suggestions (if we do use the original suggested title, it should be trespassing and not transpassing, I think? Skynxnex (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. it should be trespassing, my bad. – robertsky (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looks like the move is fine to go ahead, but think it should probably be trespass rather than trespassing as a noun? As per e.g. Trespass in English law  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru No issue with it being a noun. – robertsky (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. @Stoepkrijtske brings up a good point in that renaming the article to the new one would make the new title extremely undescriptive and similar to a title like "2022 Singapore ship cabin housebreaking". If the emphasis relates to jail, national security, and the appeals in court, then I think it would be better to rename the article to Attorney General v Oliver Fricker as the article revolves around legal and political issues rather than the nature of the crime. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose that alt proposal. Support move to 2010 Singapore train depot trespass and vandalism case. The article is about the whole saga, not just the court case, and in any case if we're talking about "undescriptive", the Attorney General v Oliver Fricker is clearly more meaningless to readers than an actual descriptive title saying what it's about.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Singapore_train_depot_trespass_and_vandalism_case&oldid=1196573756"