Talk:Scott Watson

NPOV edits
I have removed edits by John Nevard that clearly contain speculative information and associated implications, namely that sonar investigations by the RNZ Navy indicated possible presence of remains of the missing pair in Torres Channel. These edits also attempt to imply a link between an anchor chain allegedly missing from the Blade. They also attempt to wrongly imply that cost consideration was the primary reason for discontinuing search of target area. Naval source documents reveal the search did not identify a chain and that the search revealed no target matching description of missing bodies. Media speculation is exactly that, speculation. This case remains controversial and all possible effort should be made to ensure speculation and insinuation have no part in this article. RichardJ Christie (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Speculation in unreferenced sections
I have removed two totally unreferenced sections, both of which were challenged months ago but haven't been cleaned up. Please put aside feelings of guilt/innocence and stick to the referenced facts. Don't just slap in sections about police misconduct and trial by media without references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.240.150 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV edits?
Recent edits appear to be trying to push a POV. I have made an edit to try to restore neutrality. See the diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Watson&type=revision&diff=693015175&oldid=692523327

Firstly, the man was described as unidentified. That was a POV, since the police were satisfied that they had identified him as Scott Watson. We should not plant the idea in the reader's mind that the man was never identified. He may have been or may not have been. Secondly, it should be borne in mind that the vessel to which Ben and Olivia and the man transferred was claimed by the man to be his, not identified as such. His boat may have been tied up alongside this boat, on the opposite side. The man may have lied about the identity of the boat, so as to confuse Wallace and the others. That may be where the confusion about Wallace's two-masted ketch comes from. Therefore, we should not say that the three got onto the man's boat. Nobody knows whether it was his or not. Akld guy (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

2017 Royal Pardon appeal
I think this addition to the article should be removed. It is full of problems. It is based on one Fairfax article that reports opinion, thus making the source merely opinion. The application to the Crown was by one man, seemingly without a lawyer, who scraped together one 'scientific' report. And take a loo at this https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/99273873/convicted-murderer-behind-scott-watson-appeal|here. Being a convicted murderer does not stop the guy getting a fair hearing, but, really, worthy to add to this encyclopedia? user:Greatballsofwire and user:Snicklers are clearly on a barely hidden mission and may be socks. We have had this article used before by Scott Watson advocates. It looks like it is starting again. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The section you have deleted is based on three separate articles. You previously deleted information from a fourth citation claiming it was from a ten year old source. You seem to have a problem with facts reported in reliable sources, and then you make ad hominem attacks on the people providing the facts. This is why Donald Trump is such a threat to the free press. He doesn't like facts either. Greatballsofwire (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The source was an opinion piece, ten years old or not. The recent Sunday Star times article reports the opinion of McDonald whose credibility is questionable. I have replaced a sentence, with one of those references, that confirms that an application was lodged. I hope it is not used as a platform to expand into further speculation and weasel tactics by lobbyists, or by others acting in good faith. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just looked at wiki policy on disagreements of this nature it seems that editing decisions are to be made by consensus (WP:CONS). Akld guy reinstated this sentence “It included a report by forensic scientist Sean Doyle which questioned whether the hairs were really Hope's, and criticised the way these hair samples were handled at the time of the original trial.” In the edit summary, he said: “I don't see why we can't say this. It's in the first cited reference.”
 * By over-ruling a consensus achieved by other editors, perhaps without realising it, you are engaging in tendentious editing - see WP:TEND which says “Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.”
 * You also claim "The source was an opinion piece." So what. This is a controversial case and WP:NPOV states: "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects."


 * See also Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete where it says: Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted. It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. Greatballsofwire (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It wasn't even an opinion piece. Here is the diff where I stated that we should be able to make the statements [that were subsequently deleted]. The first reference is not an opinion. It's Stuff telling us the fact that the scientist is disputing whether the hairs were Hope's, and that there were questions raised about possible mishandling of those hairs. I'm not pushing any case, and in the interests of making the article more informative, believe we shouldn't be restricted to reporting that an appeal has been lodged, which Roger 8 Roger is attempting to do, but we should be able to report the basis on which the appeal is being made according to what Stuff is telling us. has expressed suspicions that two editors are sockpuppeting. He needs more than just suspicions; any accusations like that on which he provides no evidence are likely to result in a complaint to WP:ANI. Akld guy (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Akld guy. I am a little surprised at the comment at the end of your post above. I said Greatballsofwire may be a sock with Snicklers. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that interested editors would have checked on the edit histories. Only four edits by Greatballsofwire, each about Scott Watson, and then, when those edits were challenged, up pops Snicklers with two edits, both also about Scott Watson. That, combined with the emotion of this case and the history of this article with sockpuppetry and previous editors pushing an agenda, going back years, I think my suspicion was justifiably raised, suspicion that passes the duck test. The report does state that Doyle's report questions whether the hairs were really (weasal) Hope's (secondary source). Possibly worth mentioning, I agree. The report later says The new evidence focuses on the how the hair samples were mishandled and how the evidence can't be looked at in isolation," McDonald said. (primary source, or put more bluntly, the unreliable opinion of a ex-convict. This cannot be used, and is an example of why I initially said when editing this new piece of information, that care needs to be taken when re-writing media reports. There are other examples of why I think this new application for RP should be handled carefully. Other than all this, I do not really have any major disagreements with your position. I think in the array of edits some assumptions may have been made and some changes made that were not intended or were misinterpreted, or made too quickly. On reflection, I had amended some changes I had made. For example, mention of this application certaainly needs to be made, even if it is made by a lobbying unreliable person. How much attention it is given is open to debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have restored factual info deleted by Roger 8 Roger. And FYI, if you check the edit history you'll see I started editing this article before Greatballsofwire came along, not the other way around. And I agree with Akld guy that the article you claimed was an opinion piece to justify your deletions was not opinion. As he said "It's Stuff telling us the fact that the scientist is disputing whether the hairs were Hope's." Snicklers (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Greatballsofwire First, there is no consensus so please do not try to accuse me of ignoring consensus.There is a dispute between you and me, and that should be discussed here before further changes are made on the main page. I will assume you are a new editor and are acting in good faith. That dispute seems to be about the amount of attention given to this new RP application and the quality of the sources. Akld guy is the only other editor involved. I suggest you take a closer look at what a reliable source is. There is more to it than most people first think. So-called facts need to be treated very carefully, and in a case like this, especially so. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with the latest revert by Roger 8 Roger in which he removed 2 edits by Snicklers. It's not necessary to go into such detail about the disputed hair samples, and one of the references is an opinion piece, described as such by Stuff. Akld guy (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When he deleted these details, Roger 8 Roger wrote: "This is not a re-run of the trial." Really? The article doesn't even mention the trial so inserting this material about the hair can hardly constitute a re-run. It is the first time the evidence about the hair is even mentioned in the entire article. What this article needs is a section on the issues presented at the trial. Snicklers (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Trial section
This article does not have a section on what happened at the trial. Any suggestions? Snicklers (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost exactly two years ago, an editor with a POV attempted to introduce intricate details of the Bain family murders trial. Other editors with strong opposing views weighed in and there were contentious and bitter fights with many reverts all through the summer of 2015-2016. The problem was that editors felt that each bit of evidence for Bain had to be balanced by evidence that showed him guilty. In the end, one editor, User:Turtletop was found to be sockpuppeting in order to support his own edits, and the amount of detail in the trial section was cut back to the barest summary. I would hate to see a similar situation develop here in what is already a contentious case. Akld guy (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the Bain page. Even if it has been cut, it still contains six paragraphs about the first trial and another two paras on the second. Watson's page doesn't have one word about his trial, let alone six paragraphs. I don't think we can use fear of disagreements about content as a reason to have no content at all. Snicklers (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)