Talk:Caning of Michael Fay

POV

Huge amounts of bias. i replaced all reference to the 'yew regime' with the phrase 'Singapore Government', and removed the word dictator.

article vandalized again with the usual 'yew regime' phrases showing up, reverted to prior version before the vandalism. --R4ge 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The section "U.S. v. Singapore: A view based on comparative law" does not belong here, for the this article is about that kid that got caned. A section about comparative law not directly pertaining to the issue at hand is no more relevant than a section talking about "International Law" would be under an article about Herman Goering.--Bletch 21:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This section was a speculative tangent. --Twinxor 21:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 'The Singaporean response' is probably not from a NPV.

Other places of residence

I just wanted to add here that sometime in the late 1980s/early 1990s Fay lived with his father (?) in Naperville, Illinois. I so happen to have his freshman yearbook photograph - in the same book as my own! --JohnDBuell 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

'Felt'

A weasel word and used twice in the same paragraph about the Singapore government's response to the American government's reaction. Instead you should mention exactly what the Singaporean government stated, not what you think the government (or anybody else) 'felt'. I have doubts that the government perceived Clinton's actions as being anything other than a usual appeal for clemency that governments routinely issue on behalf of their citizens abroad (certainly no demarche was issued, and irony-free Singapore wouldn't suggest that the US should start criticising all verdicts delivered in Singaporean criminal courts for the sake of consistency)

Aftermath

The section "Aftermath" quotes: The Michael Fay incident was followed by another incident where a Filipino maid named Flor Contemplacion was convicted of the murder of her employer's son and another maid and subsequently executed. The case sparked outrage in the Philippines and highlighted the plight of Filipinos working in Singapore. Other than being in Singapore, how is this 'aftermath' of this incident? --Achromatic 23:37, 26 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. --Vsion 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The portions of the "Aftermath" section pertaining to Weird Al, etc., would make much more sense under a section entitled "Pop Culture References" or something as they are trivial and not directly related.

American media calls for attacks on embassy

I don't remember anyone calling for an attack on the Singapore embassy. Even if one nutjobs talk radio guy did say such a thing, that hardly makes it "the American media." This needs to get cited, or removed. 65.171.232.28 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed that sentence; the rest of the section seems to be valid, but I added a "unreferenced" tag. --Vsion 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

References and cited sources

Unfortunately I am in a medium sized city in Taiwan, but if anyone is still a university student with access to a large university library, could that person search for the references that I listed and fill in the source needed footnotes? I would have done it if I were living in Berkeley. Allentchang 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Van Nguyen link?

Why on earth is there a link to Van Tuong Nguyen on this page? Van Nguyen shares no similarities with Michael Fay, other than the fact that they were both arrested in Singapore. I would remove the link, but I'd rather bring up the issue here first to see what others' opinions are.

Nguyen was arrested and executed for drug smuggling, as opposed to Fay, who was arrested and caned for vandalism. Unless we're going to provide a link to every foreigner who has been caned/executed in Singapore, the Van Nguyen link doesn't belong. 61.68.35.146 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

just remove it. Uucp 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Address

If it helps Michael Fay lived on the 21st floor of Regency Park Condo on nathan road, and led police there following his arrest (in which 25 police officers arrived at the Singapore American School). police found road signs and a taxi "not for hire" sign in his bedroom. My source is a book called “Singapore – The State and the culture of excess” by Souchou Yao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.1 (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

NPOV and tone

This does not sound like an encyclopedic entry, specifically the part where it says, "The paper printed this information. How can they not be facts if the newspaper printed it? It's the official paper of the government." Or something to that effect.

I believe a lot of this article should be re-edited, if not just chalked up and rewritten entirely. Is there anyone with a definite wealth of information on this topic? --lepetiterobot 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

there is a POV-y editor who seems to want to use the page to argue that Fay was the victim of a massive Singaporean conspiracy, or something. I have reverted the edits, again. Uucp 14:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could it have been anything other than a massive conspiracy? An agreement among hundreds if not thousands to torture him, to disregard the virtual certainty of innocence, that he was brutally coerced into confessing, that he was tortured as punishment for a crime like spraypainting? (See my entry under "coerced".)--Johnm307 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you being satirical? -- Alarics (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just being literal.Johnm307 (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Coerced?

Fay claimed in an interview on one of the major television news magazines (possibly ABC's 20/20) that he did not actually vandalize the cars and his confession was coerced. He alleged that the police used some extreme tactics to extract confessions. He also said that his legal counsel did not believe his sentence would include caning if he pled guilty, otherwise he would not have done so (the plea was in effect a plea of 'no contest' rather than an admission of guilt). If this can be adequately sourced it should probably be in the article. --Mwalimu59 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he said something to that effect in his Larry King interview. I have mentioned this in the article and added a link. Alarics (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that there should be a section on the other persons arrested and charged in the same case, or at least a discussion of those. For example, there were allegations that one Malaysian teenager had his eardrum ruptured during the interrogation, and that another American teenager, Stephen Freehill had confessed to crimes committed while he was out of the country. Freehill was allowed to plead to far reduced charges, with only a fine as punishment. If these allegations can be credibly sourced, they should be included in this article, as they confirm Fay's allegations of brutal coercion of confession.Johnm307 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. There may be a case for mentioning those other persons, but it would not prove anything about the Fay case. -- Alarics (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, if others were confirmed abused or coerced to confess falsely in the same case, it does confirm his story. It would be a massive coincidence otherwise -- you think that the only abuse to occur would be the abuse that's exposed -- the two cases above? Do you think that abusers would only abuse if they were caught? Police as suicidally stupid criminals? No. If someone was abused in the Fay case, it makes it far more likely that Fay was abused as well.

It's also a simple problem in probability theory: the probability that Fay was abused given that abuse occurred is greater than the prior (unconditioned) probability that he was abused. Notation: FA = "Fay abused", A="Someone abused," and ~means not.

P(FA) = P(FA & A) + P(FA & ~A) = P(FA | A) P(A) + P(FA | ~A) P(~A) = P(FA|A) P(A) because P(FA | ~A) absolutely has to be zero.

So P(FA | A) = P(FA)/P(A)

Face it. Fay was abused and framed by the Singaporean police. Concluding anything else is high gullibility.Johnm307 (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're doing original research there. The only question relevant here is, what, if anything, should go into the article about Fay's co-accuseds. There certainly were allegations of coercion but they remain allegations only. As for your statement that "Fay was abused and framed", that is purely your opinion, of which there is absolutely no proof, and has no place here. Alarics (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What I argued was hardly original. All the facts established that Fay was terrorized into confessing and pleading guilty. Making someone confess is frame-up in the same sense that planting blood or fingerprints is frame-up -- evidence is fabricated and used against him. Either abuse occurred in the case, or it didn't. We've established that abuse occurred in the case, because one person confessed to crimes committed while he was outside the country, and another got his eardrum ruptured. There's no reasonable argument that goes like this: "Sure, we abused those two to make them confess. That doesn't mean we abused Michael Fay." Johnm307 (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And of course, we have the fact that it took them a week or more to persuade Michael Fay to confess and plead guilty.Johnm307 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are still doing "original research", a technical term in Wikipedia that means constructing your own hypothesis from assorted facts (or alleged facts). Please read the rules at WP:OR. The article already notes that Fay said his confession was false and that he later claimed to have been ill-treated under questioning. You may, if you wish, deduce for yourself that those claims seem likely to be true, but that is not enough to be able to state them as verified facts in an encyclopaedia article. Alarics (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The article only mentions Fay's claim that the confession was false in passing. If Fay was indeed terrorized into confessing and pleading guilty, this should be the primary focus of the article. The facts surrounding the case strongly indicate coercion, and any competent and honest article would indicate so. If the argument I'm making is "original research," find a way to tell the accurate story without "original research."

It seems to me that the rule against "original research" imposes a huge bias in certain circumstances. For example, if we are allowed to say that Jill confessed to a crime committed at 3:00am, July 30, 2007 in New York City, and she happened to be in Los Angeles at that time, it would be "original research" to conclude that her confession was false.Johnm307 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because it took someone a while to confess has no direct implication of guilt or otherwise. Do note that statements made by the defendent is inherently biased in his favour. However if you do evidence or facts by established 3rd party sources showing his innocence, do quote these sources for these "Facts". If they fulfill WP:RS, feel free to add them in the main article. Else your conjuncture and deduction still falls within the domain of WP:OR.DanS76 (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, taking over a week to make someone confess means that he didn't want to confess and had to be persuaded somehow or other -- or at least he was giving up on not confessing. Also note that Fay was stuck in an environment controlled by the interrogators. The interrogators control the environment, they control the witnesses, they control the information. The burden of proof should be on them. The only information we can possibly have is victim statements and environmental events seen afterwards. If a boy and an interrogator are stuck by themselves in a dark room in the back of a police station, the boy can't do anything to verify his account, while the interrogators have every means. The boy's statements should be presumed true; let the interrogator disprove them. (If the boy is lying and is believed, it's the interrogator's fault. Maybe the next time the interrogator will know to videotape the interrogation.)

We have Fay's own statement. We have the extended time of interrogation, after which he confessed to everything they wanted him to confess to. (In fact, confession after hours of continued integration mean coercion is highly probable.) Assuming these can be adequately verified, we have a fellow defendant's eardrum ruptured. We have the well-known "aircon room." We have another fellow defendant confessing to crimes committed while he was out of the country. We have Fay confessing to a crime committed while he was playing football (or soccer). We have apartment doormen (?) saying that he never returned home with any signs of spray paint. Finally, we have numerous claims made all over, about coercive and violent interrogation by the Singapore police.

The only thing I am willing to concede is the need to adequately source and verify these claims. There comes a point when it is ridiculous to pretend that Fay voluntarily confessed and pleaded guilty.Johnm307 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You still seem not to understand, or else you are simply saying you do not wish to follow, Wikipedia's rule against "original research". We have to abide by that rule and there is no point at all in your arguing about it here. You are putting forward your own unverified hypothesis based on unproven assertions made by the defendant in the case. You can go and publish a magazine article or book setting out your own personal theories, but they cannot be part of an objective encyclopaedia article. Alarics (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe presenting information and suggesting the conclusion is "original research" but presenting the information and letting the information itself suggest the conclusion is not. Furthermore by your standard of "original research," Wikipedia has numerous examples of "original research". Any form of logical conclusion qualifies; you see it in math articles. (An example is here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Instanton#Instantons, where they do math work without citing anything for the steps.) (You didn't object to my example of "original research" above.)

Find some way to present the evidence without doing "original research." Or otherwise, redefine Wikipedia's definition of "original research" to allow for commonsense conclusions.151.213.185.138 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The above was me, by the way.Johnm307 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Maths examples isn't a good example at all, it only further points out the the need for a good reliable neutral source. In case you did not notice it, there is a list of cited references the bottom of the article from which the steps are obviously derived. Though the bad example you identified does go a long way towards explaining why you cannot get yourself clear exactly on what is OR, and why its not allowed.DanS76 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're demanding further than reliable neutral source for the facts -- something I agree with. You're calling it original research to even suggest the conclusion from the facts. The problem with the math example, and the example I gave above (about Jill confessing) is that a source isn't actually cited for actual conclusions, instead depending on the internal logic itself to derive the conclusions. In any sane situation, that's not a real problem. But using your standard of "original research" here, it's original research.

I think you're confused again here. The link to the maths example gives a whole book on the said topic at the bottom of the article, as mentioned by DanS76 under cited references. Written by a notable scholar on the topic, published by a third party publisher as a study on the topic by a scholastic guide, it does not fall under OR under wikipedia's standards.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, in any sane, intelligent situation, it would not be a real problem to point out that a Malaysian teen's eardrum was ruptured, an American teen confessed to crimes committed while outside Singapore, and that it took the police over a week to get Fay to confess -- all in the Fay case -- and use them to support the conclusion that Fay was terrorized into confessing. There's nothing original about that kind of reasoning, yet it's called "original research." You're forbidding even the inclusion of the facts, and letting the facts themselves suggest the conclusion.

The time it took to get a confession is of no argumentative value to this debate, as there's been historical cases of both delayed false confessions and quick true confessions, as vice versa. As per wikipedia policy, it is a problem to give undue weight to potentially Fringe theories. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody answered my objection above: does anyone possibly believe that the only abuse to occur was the abuse that was actually caught? That abuse of others in the Fay case literally is irrelevant for Fay himself? Or that the extended time -- over a week to get the confession -- is irrelevant? Especially since there is no way to get independent direct confirming evidence -- it would require audio or videotape, or one of the abusers actually admitting it, or visible signs of injury noted by independent observers.

Your question is really vague here. What do you mean by "abuse that is caught"? None of the abuse were "caught" anywhere, so its basically boiling down to allegations from both sides.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if I found the 1994 New York Times article that made essentially these arguments, would that satisfy the "original research" objection?Johnm307 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/17/world/overlooked-question-in-singapore-caning-debate-is-the-teen-ager-guilty.html

Johnm307 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, that's the first useful point you've contributed to the article. Figure out how to include the content without violating Undue Weight and NPOV policies, and you're good to go. This will actually be the hardest part of trying to get the content in. Just remember to differentiate between facts, allegations and claims. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words?

Part of the article says "Under what some might regard as the misapplication of the 1966 Singapore Vandalism Act, which was originally passed to curb the spread of communist graffiti in Singapore and which specifically covered vandalism of government buildings,".

Is that not a form of weasel wording? Quite aside from that, the article on the Act (follow the link on this article), while referring to public buildings goes onto say "Furthermore, any damages to private property are illegal under the Act without the written consent of the owner or occupier." Obviously, different authors have written the two parts I have quoted, but I still wonder whether this article requires reconsideration.Informed Owl (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Notable enough

This person is really notable due to canning incident in Singapore happened in 1993-94. This was the worst ever happened in Singapore history. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He was practically asking for it! {Chris Henniker (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)}

Practically asking for it? They knew that he was partially reponsible for a huge vandalism spree. He could have gotten a much longer sentence in New York City. I'm mostly surprised that Bill Clinton got involved. So he got whacked with a stick, on the buttocks, and got a few months in jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:8CC:1BCC:A648:9716 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page, like all WP article talk pages, is meant for discussing how the article might be improved, not for exchanging editors' personal opinions about the case. -- Alarics (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd uncited line

"The Singaporean government pointed out that Singaporeans who break the law faced the same punishments as Fay, and suggested that the United States should pay more attention to its domestic problems, such as American law and order, rather than telling other countries what to do.[citation needed]" --- this line seems to have been put in by an editor at some point to make a WP:POINT and express some political view about the US. Unless it gets a citation, with them actually saying it, I'm removing it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Text reworked for greater precision, and citations duly added. -- Alarics (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

The third paragraph in this section seems to be out of date. There's a caning video on (I think) Live Leak which clearly shows how much damage is done from a small number of strokes. Indeed the first is arguably the most significant. So the suggestion that the low number of strokes inflicted would have allowed for the guy to sit etc., is dubious at best. I suspect the real reason not much damage was done was that they went very easy on him for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.49.59.19 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Move

I propose that this article be moved to "The whipping of Michael P. Fay" the individual has no standalone notability. 117.195.83.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no need for any such change. He is notable by virtue of the immense barrage of press publicity the case engendered. -- Alarics (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It is the canning that is notable, not the individual. 117.220.250.87 (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As admitted by Alarics, the case is notable, not Fay. 117.220.250.87 (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the distinction you are making is a meaningful one in this context. Anyway it is not the punishment itself that was notable but the fuss made of it, i.e. the whole case and all the diplomatic and media ructions that surrounded it. Fay was obviouisly the pivotal figure and his is the name by which the case became known. The article title should stay as it is. -- Alarics (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Michael P Fay has no inherent notability, but the fact of his caning does. It is appropriate to title this by the title of his punishment, not the name of the man who was punished. He was not whipped, but caned, thus Caning of Michael P. Fay is appropriate. The punishment created the fuss, and that fuss created notability for the punishment. Who the individual was is unimportant. THus I support a correct move not the precise move proposed Fiddle Faddle 08:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you think would be achieved by changing the name of the article. Even if we did, there would still have to be a redirect from the present title. Think of it from the point of view of a WP reader trying to find out about this case: what do you think they will search for? -- Alarics (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What one achieves is a correctly titled article, no more and no less. Redirects are not an issue. Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how about "The caning of Michael P. Fay"? Timtrentl? 117.195.85.255 (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As someone who was actually paying attention to the case back then, it was not only the caning that was notable, but also the various factors before and after that. There was also the debate whether vandalism and theft of public property warranted punishment, the clash of culture values (where such acts might not have been so heavily punished if he was caught back home). In some way we could compare this to Edward Snowden, who is similarly notable for only one infamous act, yet the notability is greater for the various debates his actions brought to the table, hence that article carries his name by itself least it be split into different topics. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

New proposal

I propose this article be moved to "The caning of Michael P. Fay" 59.94.210.197 (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons set out above by Zhanzhao. -- Alarics (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment We tend to shy away from the use of the definite article in titles here. There is nothing particularly interesting about this incident as a punishment or as a person. He was caned. So what? It was a common enough punishment. This one loks as if it will always end as no consensus, and it is hardly worth caring. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose just because he's only notable due to the caning doesn't make him not notable. If there's a reason to have a page about the incident at all, then there's a reason for him to have a page.76.226.205.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michael P. Fay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920031803/http://corpun.com/sgju9404.htm to http://www.corpun.com/sgju9404.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920031803/http://corpun.com/sgju9404.htm to http://www.corpun.com/sgju9404.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920031803/http://corpun.com/sgju9404.htm to http://www.corpun.com/sgju9404.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920031803/http://corpun.com/sgju9404.htm to http://www.corpun.com/sgju9404.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael P. Fay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825175717/http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1554_2009-08-06.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1554_2009-08-06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael P. Fay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208212700/http://www.corpun.com/usju9404.htm to http://www.corpun.com/usju9404.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Response: Public Reaction, 2nd paragraph

The links are all fringe websites that don't seem to like global connectivity, racial diversity, or any outcome that isn't an all out race war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/2603:6010:f00:3c:75c9:5aef:88c:b704 (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC).

Not at all clear what you are talking about. Please explain. -- Alarics (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)