Talk:'Nosey Bob' Howard

non-free tag
Smasongarrison, you claim this article "may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material". I dispute that, so perhaps you would like to explain why you added that particular maintenance template and identify the "non-free material" you claim is contained in the article. Ikeshut2 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take your comment in good faith, and direct you to the copyvivo report, which indicates numerous matches, in the 20%+ . I did not examine them closely, as I was more focused on determining whether Nosey Bob met the notability criteria, which I think he does. Mason (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! If I am reading the report correctly, the major issue is with the Dictionary of Sydney reference which I used to justify one sentence: "His father worked as a coachman and Robert followed in his father's profession", which doesn't even get highlighted in the comparison.  What does get highlighted are things like the names of newspapers, direct quotes (which are acknowledged as quotes), "the colony of New South Wales" (!!), etc.  Nothing very surprising, seeing the author who wrote the article in the Dictionary of Sydney website was writing about the same subject and, to a large extent, relying on the same references as I was.  I used the Dictionary of Sydney reference for one thing, and one thing only.  I have now replaced that citation with another so I can't be accused of "excessive or improper use of non-free material".  I note the instructions on the report say to "check the results carefully", which you admitted you did not do.  As far as I'm concerned this just exposes the shortcomings of this sort of report.  I take great pride in the fact that in my articles, either initiated or extensively re-written, every statement is backed up by a reference.  I know about plagiarism, and I resent the implication that I am a plagiarist, especially in such an off-hand way as you have done.  It's a pity people like you don't spend your time adding the 'citation required' tag to the great slabs of unreferenced material copied & pasted into multiple articles throughout Wikipedia.  That'd give you a job for life. Ikeshut2 (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My intent was not accuse you of plagiarism, you made that leap; the tag says "may contain". It's a useful tool with many false positives. I'm thrilled that they're false positives in your case, because I found the page to be very interesting. You're welcome to feel resentful if you wish and be snarky, but new page patrolling is a worthwhile use of time, even if you don't think so. 2603:6081:6300:2D7:81B8:6713:1E4D:BE3A (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I note when you were advised of your 'new page reviewer' status, you were instructed: "Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page." If the report you relied upon is "a useful tool with many false positives" (my emphasis), that instruction seems like good advice.  And as far as holding up your hands and denying you accused me of plagiarism, of course you did, that's what that tag is all about.  The "may contain..." is just to give you an out to cover up your rush to judgement.  I note that, despite you acknowledging they were false positives in my case, you haven't deleted the tag.  I have issues with the other tags as well, but I'll get to them in time. Ikeshut2 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was explaining my intent of the tag and process, not denying that you perceived it as an accusation. I am sorry that you have been upset by my tag; you clearly have strong feelings about this, which is why I responded promptly. I would encourage you to assume good faith, as I have been doing in our discussion.
 * Frankly, I had assumed that you already removed the tag. You made a very clear and convincing case that this is a false positive. Mason (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the tag. The reason I didn't is that I believe the person who placed it, if it has been demonstrated that there was no justification for placing it in the first place, should take the responsibility of removing it.  I suspect that if you had taken the time to look beyond the 50+% in the convivo report, you wouldn't have placed that tag in the first place (or at least I hope that is the case).  I do assume good faith on your part, I just think you didn't bother to look beyond the 50+%.  Your method of shooting first and asking questions later is exactly what discourages hard-working, well-intentioned editors such as myself who assiduously avoid direct copying of the work of others (hence my 'snarkiness').  This is the first occasion that anyone has placed the 'non-free' tag on my work, but now at least, if it ever happens again, I've been made aware of the shortcomings of the copyvivo report. Ikeshut2 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

'overly detailed' tag
Smasongarrison, let me just say, up front, that this tag doesn't particularly bother me, but here is my justification for the approach I took:
 * a biographical article such as this should describe important and noteworthy events in a person's life, including events which give context to life events.
 * being responsible for and participating in the killing of a person is clearly an important and noteworthy event, it's just that in this case it happened sixty-two times.
 * I had the choice of (a) simply noting that it happened 62 times; (b) listing the 62 executions in the style of name/date/place (as is done in this page); or (c) provide detail for each execution, giving context to each.
 * I chose (c) because I thought it would make a more interesting article. No-one is forced to read a Wikipedia article; some will be satisfied by the summary at the top, others may skim through the article and others will read it thoroughly.  In my opinion, it's great that readers have that choice.

But maybe I've got it wrong. The 'overly detailed' tag identifies articles which "contain excessive detail on trivial subjects". Really? Are you implying my summaries of the 62 executions constitute "excessive detail on trivial subjects" (my emphasis)? Or have you taken issue with the passing mention of garden maintenance at Darlinghurst Courthouse (or shark-fishing at Bondi)? I'm actually confused about what was in your mind when you decided to add this tag. Ikeshut2 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Please stop pinging me. I've tried engaging with you in good faith, but you've consistently taken uncharitable interpretations of my edits. I've unmarked this page as reviewed so that someone else can engage with you instead, who hasn't upset you. For the record, I think that 62 is a lot of executions to list on a page. Mason (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

'primary sources' tag
In regard to this tag, placed there by the previous reviewer (now ex-reviewer, see above), I am fairly certain, based on evidence that came to light after communicating with this person, that the reviewer failed to realise that many of the newspaper references in this article are actually secondary sources. Howard's biography was published in serialised form during his lifetime. They can be readily identified in the citations, many of them having "Howard's Holocaust" in the title and numbered with Roman numerals. There are also other secondary sources cited, that were published in his lifetime, as well as others published in newspapers after he died. The plethora of biographical material about Howard in newspapers, during and soon after his death, is in itself evidence of "the topic's notability". This article also makes extensive use of Rachel Frank's biography, the only biography of Howard in book form.

I could have easily substituted many of the primary source citations with the appropriate page numbers from Franks' book, but the advantage of having a mix of primary sources (with links) and secondary sources (without links), is that a reader without access to Franks' book, if they wished, could click on a link to find out more information. If any subsequent reviewer still feels there are too many primary sources, then so be it, but at least I can say I've had the opportunity to state my case. Ikeshut2 (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The loss of Howard's nose
The historian Rachel Franks has proposed that the loss of Howard's nose may have come about from a condition known as saddle-nose caused by syphilis. However, the evidence suggests the loss of his nose was a sudden event, or it happened within a short time-frame. The most common cause of saddle-nose is trauma. Saddle-nose from syphilis usually occurs from congenital syphilis (i.e., a child is born with syphilis passed from the mother), which is inconsistent with the loss of Howard's nose within a short time-frame.

Refer to: Ikeshut2 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sophie Kesteven & Ann Arnold (2022), Nosey Bob was Sydney's longest serving hangman but he always treated those he dispatched with dignity, ABC News website, Australian Broadcasting Corporation; accessed 3 October 2023.
 * Saddle Nose, Cleveland Clinic website; accessed 3 October 2023.
 * Saddle nose, Wikipedia page.