Talk:Rodney Marks (astrophysicist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Flag
Portal
 Rodney Marks (astrophysicist) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] Tagged for speedy deletion, "alleged murder"

This page tagged for speedy deletion by a one post user for being nonsense and lacking importance "This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and/or the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1)" and "lacks information on the importance of the subject matter."

Nonsense? Even in first post there were links to newspaper coverage of the event. And look at your own rules - people write articles in multiple posts you should WAIT - and this may mean days - until the article is completed before judging it.

Importance? The first murder in Antarctica isn't important? Lets run the Google test on this. Pathetic.

This article was tagged within seconds of being posted and could not have been read by the tagger.

Like many users I am sick of the stupid criticsms and incorrect corrections of articles placed by bots - let alone the possibility of loosing an article as soon as it is created to a speedy deletion process. Most wikipedians are interested in writing not deleting or administering and don't follow the archane rules that trigger bots, or want to waste time defending anything vaguely questionable under some obscure rule written by deletionists. This is not a matter of 'oh, we've now decided your article has some slight merit so we will be kind enough to let it stay with alterations we see fit, be grateful' and any criticsm which shows a complete lack of procedural justice is dismissed as wikilawyering. The act of tagging the article is rude, annoying and impolite and wrong, and creating a robot to be rude annoying and impolite as well as frequently wrong is worse. An apology would be appreciated. yes the article could no doubt be improved. be cosntructivem, research it and make the edits yourself. Winstonwolfe 04:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK if being the first alleged murder in Antarctica makes it important, why is that not in the first sentence of the article? -- RHaworth 04:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
because I'm not writing for the ease of deletionists - they can have the decency to read the article before deleteing it. Last scentence, second to last para. Winstonwolfe 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done extensive cleanup:[1] as far as I can tell, *none* of the sources are alleging it's a murder, so I've removed the POV and sensational wording. The news is still fresh, and reading it as "murder" seems premature based on the sources given so far. Sandy (Talk) 18:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And I'm guessing the headline "Who Killed Rodney Marks" sways you not one little bit. Winstonwolfe 06:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From my talk page

Thanks for your work in editing these articles. Inevitably given how extensive the edits were, I have a couple of minor quibbles:

1. I do not think it is plausible to state there is no evidence that a third party was involved in the death - the police and coroner quite clearly say this is the most likely option, and more likely than suicide or accidental death. Although I do not think the original text was unreasonable on this point, as a compromise, I have replaced the words "no evidence" with "no certainty".

I thought I had read through all of the sources (I may have missed one, as there seem to be a number of sources which say the same thing - it may be wise to prune the sources to avoid duplication). Sandy (Talk) 13:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Re duplication, yes irritatingly, you will notice they say almost but not exactly the same thing - except for the DSS quotes. Why? I never wrote this in the article, because someone like you would quite rightly tell me to prove it and I can't. But it seems to me almost certain there is one source from which all media took the quotes.
Some of the sources you added are exact mirrors of others - this happens all the time in news. For example, many newspapers will carry an AP story, so that the same story appears on different news sources. We can eliminate duplicates. Sandy (Talk) 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free Winstonwolfe 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
In a Coroners investigation, they normally quote the Coroner - but here it is the DSS. Interstingly each of the articles uses some of the same quotes from the DSS, none of them show the DSS being asked questions, and all newspapers have the quotes word for word - which is very rare for a press conference where the ums and ahs and beginings and ends are edited into sliglty different statements by journalists. So I think it likely the source here was the DSS, who has handed out some written comments to journalists who have then selected from them, (in the New Zealand system, a coroner has a small number of police answerable to him or her, whose investigation is to some extent directed by the Coroner, so he may have done so with his knowledge or consent).
Why would the DSS give out a best of set of quotes? Expecially in the middle of an inquiry, when no verdict as to cause of death has been made? Well the way the hearing was adjourned indefinitely - a matter you noted in a way which felt that meant the matter had been dealt with - to the contrary, the normal practise would be to close the inquest with an open verdict; adjourning means the case is not only still open, but active investigation continues. Furthermore a hearing like this would often not come to the attention of the media. I suspect the DSS brought it to the attention of the media as well as providing the nice little list of quotes. Why would that be done? The obvious answer is to place pressure on the NSF and Raytheon to start talking. Why do they care? To assist NZ empire building in the Antarctic? Well the Christchurch Coroner has, in his private life, published a historical work about Antarctica, so does seem to have had an interest before this case, but it is not really likely- NZ isn't interested, if they were they would no what happens now is irrelevant to territorial claims under the Antarctic Treaty, and in any event they seem to have been pushing for a US agency with more teeth to take over the investigation. To prove a suicide or accident? Why? Coroners generally only get uptight where lessons can be learnt, and no South pole staff are likely to drink meths again. I think the most likely motivation for the DSS stirring up the media is he suspects foul play. (Now of course, instead of developing an elaborate theory and then not putting it in the article, I could ring up the DSS and ask him, and get the answer, but @#$%^&* Wikipedia rules say no original research). Nor will it allow blogs to be cited (okay, I’ve got no real gripe about that), if you have surfed the web to any extent you will have noticed several read the DSS comments as “the police believe it is murder”.
In passing there are many other similar versions of the story on the net, I haven't necessarily used the ones that produce the best editorialising quotes, (for example the Timaru Herald describes the US agencies "stonewalling" the investigation [2] but, while it probably had a reporter present (being close to Christchurch), the Timaru Herald is a small paper, so there opinion doesn't look good in references). Nor am I including conspiracy theory material I think doubtful. For example there is a radio report which implies the South Pole base physician lied about seeing needle tracks on Dr Mark’s arm, and says the National Science Foundation failed to release test results done immediately prior to death, (which is true but I think misleading as they haven’t released anything much, while this narrow allegation makes it seem like something specific is being deliberately hidden).Winstonwolfe 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to stay true to reliable sources: right now, it's not, and contains statements that aren't backed by the sources given. Sandy (Talk) 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find where the police or coroner say anything about murder or a third party being most likely. Can you point out which source says that? The wording "no evidence" was the exact wording used in the source, so "no certainty" seems to be originalresearch.[3] Sandy (Talk) 13:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
For example [[4]] – of course it doesn’t say the police or coroner said “likely’” because I rephrase, not plagiarise, but this story does outline – as some others also have - how the police and coroner clearly showed there were only three options, and then discounted the other two. I think the phrase “no evidence” out of this context is misleading.Winstonwolfe 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The link you gave above is just a mirror of the DPA source already used - it adds nothing new.
I didn't claim it was new, on the contrary I was showing you where I got the view from - mirror was just the first agency running that article to crop up on google this time.
"No evidence" is what the source says - anything else is connecting the dots, synthesis, original research. It also says, "it is most unlikely that Dr Marks ingested the methanol knowingly". Not ingesting it knowingly is a long ways from calling it murder - he could have ingested it accidentally. Sandy (Talk) 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Synthesis is not original research. It is in fact the main source of Wiki articles. As pointed out, in context of someone trying to make a point diplomatically taken as a whole, the comments are: Is it suicide, unlikely, is it an accident unlikely, is it caused by another person, we don't have the evdence yet for that, and haven't been able to get evidence.

2. In the Antarctic Treaty System, your edits removed any evidence of the dispute - which is the relevance of the case to that article. I have added a single scentence, stating the New Zealand police had criticsed the NSF and Raytheon for failing to assist with the inquiry.

In that article, I didn't find sourcing backing up the wording, so hopefully some is now provided - I'll check the new addition. Sandy (Talk) 13:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've now looked at that article, and don't find supporting sources for any of the inserted text. Sandy (Talk) 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
?! This was supported, as you surely noticed, in works referenced in THIS article. A link to this article was at the begining of the paragraph and if you wanted to know more you'd surely come here. Not everything written in Wikipedia needs to be referenced.Winstonwolfe 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope these changes are acceptable to you. Winstonwolfe 04:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a small point (punctuation), but one that leaves a possibly incorrect interpretation. I don't think we should run together two sentences which come from two different sources, as if they were said at the same time and in the same context - do you have a source that uses the entire quote as one? [5]

You are absolutely correct - my fault, when i corrected the punctuation, i forgot they came from two different sources, I will correct it.Winstonwolfe 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not corrected yet. The sentence - from two different sources - is still run together as one quote, with a comma. Sandy (Talk) 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've now corrected it. Sandy (Talk) 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I was getting there, sorry we're on this page at the same time :-)
This source doesn't verify the text.[6]
Without cutting and pasting text from the Lancet, I have no idea how I could verify text to your satisfaction :-), I left the verification tag at the top of the para untouched. At this point, you had requested a reference. Just after the bit about US Marshalls operating in Antarctica. I grant you I'm not very good at getting the < ref > thingies to work the way you set them up, but I thought I'd sorted out a reference for US Marshalls working in Antarctica.
Sandy (Talk) 13:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note on general philosophical differences:

Obviously I don't put everything like references to whatever standard really enthusiastic wikipedians have come up with and try to impose with varying degrees of success on articles. Basically I think making up too many obscure or pedantic rules undermines Wikipedias popularist intention, so I never bother to learn most of them. This may be a rationalisation for slackness. Nor, for the same reason, am I too concerned about spelling mistakes if I forget or can't be bothered cutting and pasting text into a spell checker, (though I notice more people "correct" my English English to American than my actual spelling mistakes :-). To compensate I don't mind at all if other people come and correct my spelling mistakes, format my references to whatever standard and so on a you have done. I don't even mind if you correct my English to American.

On the other hand, I am philosophically opposed to the no original research rules, and deletionism of factually accurate material generally, (except for advertising), and, left to my own devices, I would prefer if the onus for showing something was NOT factually accurate was squarely placed on the person wishing to delete it. As I also don't think administrators have any more moral rights than anyone else, this may make me occasionally grumpy about constant queries to prove material. My apologies if I come across that way :-). Winstonwolfe 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is the guiding policy, and the onus is on the person adding the text. Sandy (Talk) 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that's what is written there, (I take your word without bothering to check), I just say I don't like it :-).
In an article alleging murder, and implying US complicity in the murder, obviously sources will need to be cited. Thanks for understanding, Sandy (Talk) 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is fair, though I do think the defensiveness about the US may explain some of the edits. The article does not allege murder, nor US complicity. It certainly could have been an accident, it could have been suicide, it could have been an act by a third party without mens rea (lets slip something really revolting into his drink as a joke, it might stop him hitting the booze / lets store some meths in his old Vodka bottle), it might have been murder. We don't know. I think i know the cops don't like the first couple of options, but you don't think I'm right about that, and even if I am, (which is all the article ever said), that doesn't mean the cops have got it right anyway. We do know one reason why we don't know. Because one US funded agency and one company, (not the whole US), have not co-operated with the investigation. We don't know why they have refused to co-operate with the investigation. I very much doubt they did not co-operate because they committed the murder, which is what you seem to imply I am saying. Actually I suspect they didn't deliberately choose not to co-operate. If I were to guess, I would guess the letters and phone calls stuck in the too hard basket the too busy with other stuff basket or the perhaps it will go away if we do nothing basket. Possibly it was because of the complex jurisdictional issues (yes, they are complex). In my reading, and the reading of quite a few other people, but not in your reading, the police have said the first two options are less likely. Far from being American bashing, it seems to me recent events have been aimed to push the US into taking an interest. But I can't guess, which is why that isn't in the article. What bugs me more is restrictive reading of original research, to mean you can't deduce either, only parrot, until someone else says so, 2 and 2 might not make 4. Winstonwolfe 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is rather hard to follow: the long and short of it is that we need to follow WP:V and WP:RS, and avoid WP:OR - even more so when discussing murder. Winstonwolfe, would you mind not cutting my comments into new paragraphs and adding my signature to partial paragraphs? I'd like for my comments to retain intact, without someone else signing for me, as that makes the ocnversation easier to follow. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 01:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, no editing the editor. Kidding, you are right - I was trying to keep discussions about each point together, but since we both keep on answering each other, the whole thing is getting too hard to follow :-).

Okay, simplication of discussion.

I have made four sorts of comment here:

1. Comments relating to what goes in the article, (e.g. speech marks). You may or may not have noticed, but I'm actually leaving most of your edits alone. You also may or may not have noticed I am just going along with whatever rule you drag out of which ever policy.

2. Things I can't say in the article, and was not trying to, but which I could say on the talk page (e.g. betcha the DSS created that media interest). You can safely ignore these.

3. Comments about your comments (e.g. the article doesn't say it was murder let alone US complicity).

4. Comments about Wikipedia rules I don't like (e.g. I don't like WP:OR says so, so no thinking required, thats the end of it). You can safely ignore these comments because I'm just I don't like them, not "and I'll go back and revert edits because of that", (if you had too much time on your hands go back into my edit log and find examples of hypocrisy where i have dumped on people because of WP:OR too :-).

Yes, nothing in this post which requires an answer, but feel free if you want to :-)Winstonwolfe 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Winstonwolfe—Sandy alerted me to this messy page. Can I just say that only good can come from having the advice of an expert in referencing and other matters. I don't see examples of where you've applied what has been advised here throughout the article. Tony 12:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Ooooooo. Um, what? Me no comprehendez. What happened here?
- I write something.
- She doesn't like it.
- I disagree with her, but don't r.v. her changes, cause, hey, why start an edit war, lets live and let live.
- Then you say me bad cause me no do the changes she wanted for her. (Which she'd already done anyway).
That's not very nice.
Be happy, you've already won, the article is wiki rules pedantry 1, insight and anylasis, 0.
As far as the talk page goes, it takes two - or in this case three to make a talk page a mess. Not that I really mind the mess on the talk page. But if the pair of you do then don't give me all the credit - I couldn't have done it without you. Anyhows, if it really offends you, archive the lot of it and start again, tabula rasa. :-).
In the mean time, this case is back on the front pages in New Zealand, so I've added another couple of scentences. I'm sure you'll enjoy finding some rule it breaks you to get upset about. Actually as a flying start, the proper reference should be to the newspaper article, (or rather articles - it lead the features section too); the linked web site presents only part of the articles. But I am sure if you asked nicely and paid for it, they'd post you a copy. Winstonwolfe 06:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)