Talk:Mark Kirk (convict)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Kirk (convict) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] POV-in-article debate

This article was written by someone who disbelieved the basis for the conviction and suggested it was invalid, but it contained material that was libellous and terrifically one-sided. I've tried to restore it to a neutral POV -- the citations to web pages below should be enough for anyone who is interested, and I've added a reference to a decision of a Delaware court denying his appeal on the basis of "equal time". Accounting4Taste 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I do disbelieve the basis of the conviction, as do others in the references. I do not suggest that it is invalid, I say it is patent nonsense. Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum will not burn. Pure 200 proof alcohol will burn, but Captain Morgan’s is only 70 proof or 35% alcohol by volume. 65% of it is water mixed with flavorings. It contains too much water to burn. It can readily be used to extinguish a fire. According to the Wikipedia article on Alcoholic beverage, beverages need to more than 100 proof (50% alcohol) to burn.

This fact means that Kirk’s confession that he started a fire using the rum is false. Presumably, he was coerced into making the confession, but even if not, he could not have done what he confessed he did. Since the confession is the basis of Kirk’s conviction, the conviction is wrongful. I have no POV or political axe to grind. If the facts added up differently, I would say so.

I am reverting the article to its previous state. The appeals court reference is fine, but I am listing it as an external link as the article is fully referenced by the first two references. By law appeals courts presume the guilt of every convicted person. They deal with legal technicalities and are not necessarily pro-prosecution when they deny an appeal, nor are they pro-defense when they overturn a conviction. --Danras 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether you are sure that Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum will not burn, or whether you think that his confession is invalid, but whether you can provide an impartial third-party reference that says so. Please see Wikipedia: POV and Wikipedia: No original research. I have left the article as it is, other than adding the POV tag, since I have no desire to get into an edit war about this, but I'm assuming that another editor will come along and change this, and you should be prepared for that. Criminal convictions in a court of law are assumed to be factual until overturned, I believe (it is not libellous to say that someone has committed a crime if they have been convicted of doing so). At present, this article does raise doubt about the conviction, but a good Wikipedia article presents facts and neutral third-party opinions and lets the reader make up his/her own mind. Anything else raises suspicions of bias and throws both the article and the impartiality of Wikipedia into doubt. Accounting4Taste 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You did not request a reference in your first comment. You harp about partiality as though evidence should be equally balanced between prosecution and defense. Facts, however, can be very one sided and oblivious to your mental constructs of fairness. Other people besides Kirk have been convicted in defiance of easily checked facts. I would not have the imagination to make this stuff up.

All references I know support Kirk and therefore fail, by your definition of fairness, to be “impartial third-party references.” The Justice Denied reference states that Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum is 70 proof. As a one-page book reference, the rum label, available at any well stocked liquor store, also states that it is 70 proof. The Wikipedia article on Alcoholic beverage states beverages need to more than 100 proof to burn. Thus, this makes one reference. The Mark Kirk.org reference describes an independent expert performing a test by pouring Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum on a heated electric range. It even includes a photo of the expert performing the test and videos of the test. The result is no flammability. This makes a second reference. Thirdly, Wikipedia allows book references, which may require you buying a book to check out. With less expense than buying a hardcover, you can buy a bottle of Captain Morgan’s at your local liquor store and attempt to ignite it. It is asserted that you will fail. This makes a third reference. --Danras 12:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide whether something is tagged as conflict. I'm requesting third-party arbitration. Accounting4Taste 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job at balancing the article! It's a vast improvement.

Seraphim Whipp 08:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Coming from Wikipedia:Third opinion, I will initially only comment on the NPOV dispute tag and its removal. The tag has been removed with the edit comment Removed neutrality flag - see discussion. However, the tag Template:POV is not directly adressing neutrality, but just that the neutrality is disputed. And this seems to be the case for this article here.

As clarified in Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#What is an NPOV dispute?: "That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is. (...) In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

In that sense I would ask Danras to review cited policies and acknowledge the dispute above, his own NPOV opinion notwithstanding. --Tikiwont 15:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion (to address the rest of the dispute here): Danras's version is extremely POV, no question about it. Accounting4Taste's version is factual, but is definitely a stub and could probably use some cleanup. I suggest fleshing out this article. Accounting4Taste's version serves as a starting point for a lead. The first section of the article should present the facts of the case as found by the courts in greater detail, including mention of any notable events during the trial and a mention of appeals. The second should present the controversy, but watch out for WP:OR—of Danras's three "sources" for "Captain Morgan's will not burn", the first is original synthesis (also, BTW, Wikipedia itself is generally not acceptable as a source) and the third would be original research if someone did it. Note the controversy section should contain both the notable positions of the unfair-conviction viewpoint and any responses to those positions (e.g. if some WP:RS claims the whole rum-not-burning thing is irrelevant because the fire was started by an electrical short (yes, I made that up)). Also, please keep in mind WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, and remember the section should report on the controversy without taking a side. I would also recommend using <ref> for specific statements rather than just listing references at the end of the article, and remember "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Anomie 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive assistance. I have replaced the flag and will leave the article for Danras's attention and improvements, and look in on this in a few days. Accounting4Taste 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me just add that I actually agree with Anomie that the article has POV problems. I just wanted to establish first whether we can agree that we disagree. The second step for me would actually refer to the last point mentioend above, namely clarifying if there are enough independent sources at all to have an article. I found another (and rather recent) court order (motion dismissal) [1] but no real secondary source. Tikiwont 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

With respect to the references:

Multiple citations can be done via naming a ref and then using e.g <ref name="JJF" />. I've started with one source.
I'm not sure how to cite the court documents. Maybe WP:CITE helps.
The newspaper references are so far retrieved from the Mark Kirk site. They should be double checked and maybe direct links can be found. In any case the articles themselves need to be cited.
Citation tempaltes might be useful.
I'm still concerned that there are currently no third party references regarding the controversy.
What about the Justice denied magazine. Would we consider that a source or not?--Tikiwont 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for #1 -- I was having trouble figuring out how to do the multiple citations, so I will use your work as a starting point and a model. I'm sorry not to know how to cite the court documents (I know how to do it in Canada, but not the US) -- I will look into WP:CITE. I will try to reference the exact newspaper articles -- I am not sure there's enough information on the Mark Kirk site to do that, but I might be able to track them down another way.

I'll continue to work to improve this article as I have time. Thanks for your contributions and your comments. Accounting4Taste 16:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking towards the weekend for further changes but made an edit to Tikiwont's edit in the lede -- just to leave open the possibility that the fire was started by pouring some flammable substance that was not Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum on the burner. (I believe to say that would be original research, but I suggest that that inference should be available for the reader.) Accounting4Taste 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the multiple citations as best I could (and thanks Tikiwont for the show and tell), still trying to find the time to track down the remaining details. Accounting4Taste 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)