Talk:Pimlico Mystery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dyson[edit]

I removed the assertion As for Dyson, Richard Whittington-Egan's study of William Roughead's life reported that a woman in Maryland claimed Dyson came to New York, U.S.,changed his name, and as a fortune hunter married and murdered a young bride for her estate as unsupported and too indirect to include. I see it has now been restored with a reference, which is good as far as it goes -- but it still is a report by RWE of a letter found in WR's paper by an unnamed person in 1939 making the rather remarkable claim that Dyson went to America and murdered the letter-writer's sister. Surely this is far too insubstantial for an encyclopedia article. It amounts to this: "In 1939 someone claimed that Dyson murdered her sister in 1919". The fact that this claim was made is substantiated -- the claim itself is supported by no evidence whatsoever. Lots of people claim lots of things. We don't put them all in Wikipedia. This should go. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people claim lots of things. We don't put them all in Wikipedia. - yes, but this referenced. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it is verifiable - but why is this particular claim worthy of inclusion? Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is interesting, whether or not it is true. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and "whether or not it is true" should be a pretty vivid red flag. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No - see WP:TRUTH. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:The Truth is indeed an amusing essay. However, the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view especially at WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID where we find "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim was asserted to be true, this might be relevant, but it wasn't. Nor is it a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience etc. It is just reporting what a published, established writer on the subject reported.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Dyson murdered a woman in New York in 1916 is a extraordinary claim for which there is no known support beyond the personal opinion of one woman. That is claim is published in one source and is reported and not endorsed by the writer. Consequently it is minority view -- indeed, a minority of one. Hence we omit it. WP:VALID applies to all subjects, not just pseudoscience. There are many such beliefs in the world.
Time to get in a Wikipedia:Third opinion? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that doesn't make it a minority view of one, since you have no idea how many read it and believed it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then are there any reliable sources for there being more than one person in the entire history of the world who believed this claim? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As many as there are for there being precisely one believer. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Going nowhere fast I fear -- taken to Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request (Mrs. Mason's letter):
Hi there, as per the request at WP:3O, I'm here to chime in on this disagreement.

As far as I can tell, the disagreement is not over whether the claim made in the letter is verifiable (as a claim), but whether it should be included in the article, in light of NPOV concerns.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that Cusop Dingle (t c) is correct in that we, as Wikipedia editors, are not obligated to include every verifiable or referenced fact or claim in an article. We must weigh what to include in the light of the Five pillars, in this case specifically NPOV and what Wikipedia is and is not (i.e. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information).

That being said, I can see how the future activities of one of the parties involved might shed some light on the circumstances in the case that's the subject of the article. However, as written, I think the sentence draws conclusions not actually made in Mrs. Mason's letter. The letter does not directly accuse Mr. Dyson of any specific crime, only to mention that he was involved with a woman who died under circumstances Mrs. Mason believed to be suspicious, and that she believed he was involved.

For NPOV purposes, I would suggest either removing the claim entirely, as it seems to represent a minority viewpoint (per WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID), or rewriting it to make it more neutral, perhaps as so: "As for Dyson, Richard Whittington-Egan's study of William Roughead's life reported that a woman in Maryland claimed in 1939 that Dyson had come to New York, U.S., changed his name, and married and a young bride, who died under mysterious circumstances in 1916 after six years of marriage."

I hope this is helpful to your continuing discussion.——Darkwind (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to it being more neutrally worded. How helpful link is, we all seem to agree! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to include the wording proposed by Darkwind, to whom thanks for taking the time and trouble. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability[edit]

I do not think that genforum.genealogy.com/dyson/messages/777.html can be a reliable source, but it has been reinserted into the article. Why? Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source - a book - has already been provided in the reference - the link is just an informative aside for those readers who do not have ready access to the source. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know that the link is a reliable source for the text referred to in the book. Forums are not reliable sources. Hence we don't use the link. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you use it to update the article? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant and incorrect. The dates are on page 205 of the reliable source by Whittington-Egan. Why make a false statement about where I got them from? Why the concern to keep in the link? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you used the book, then you are confirming that the details in the link are correct? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying about the link is that it is not a reliable source per WP:USERG. Instead of asking me irrelevant questions and discussing my actions (see WP:TPG#YES), it would be more constructive to address the issue of the link and Wikipedia policy on sources. Is there a sound policy-base reason to keep the link, or can we now agree to remove it? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your evasive answer about the correctness of the link's contents is noted. And I have already said that it is not a source per se, but an adjunct, and should be kept. If there were a google books link instead I would use that, but apparently there isn't. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide's background - original research?[edit]

The paragraph beginning The marriage of a Clara Chamberlain and Adolphe Collot de Thomas (sic) d'Escury is recorded in the BMD index seems to consist of original research and is quite speculative. Is there a reliable source that can be cited for this? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material as unreferenced, speculative, undue and original research. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pimlico Mystery. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pimlico_Mystery&oldid=1209760612"