Talk:J. Howard Marshall/Archives/2013

Untitled

What did he do in Kock - was he active or passive ? If active, I guess he retired at some stage. -- Beardo 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Luckily there is a photo of him young.

He was part of a group that built a refinery which was later merged into Koch. He remained a director until his death. 71.143.135.189 03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

There is currently a dispute regarding the information contained in the opening paragraph of the main article. It can be followed from the beginning starting below. Both sides have laid out their arguments at the bottom, starting with "This is entirely unproductive". 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a non-user undid my revisions here. Let me explain why I erased the following sentence:

"His life spanned more than nine decades and several careers as a teacher, government official, attorney and businessman and spanned almost the entire history of the oil industry, from the early years when uncontrolled production depleted valuable fields and natural gas was burned at the well head, to the decades of energy shortages and the Arab Oil Embargo."

As per wikipedia guidelines, the opening paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. The first half of the sentence simply repeats the sentence immediately before it in different language. The second half, in addition to being untrue (the oil industry has been around for centuries, with the "modern" oil industry beginning in the early 1800s - Marshal was born in 1905), mentions events that are irrelevant to Marshall's life. At very least, it is not the kind of information that you would find in an encyclopedia. Please discuss this before reverting my changes back. MattDredd (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your explanation and appreciate it. However, your initial reason for your edit was that a source was lacking, which is untrue. It comes directly from the person's autbiography. The original author should have included a proper footnote and I added that. Some of the language was flowery and that was removed. I agree that there is some redundancy between the opening sentence and the one you removed. However, I think this is better addressed by modifiying the sentence rather than removing it and replacing it with your current version. The second half is completely true. The oil industry has NOT been around for centuries. Drake's well is widely considered to be the first modern oil well drilled and it was drilled in 1859, NOT the early 1800's. There was no oil industry prior to that. Occasional uses by people who found oil seeps does not constitute an industry. The modern oil industry did not really come into being until the 1870's. You should read up on Edwin Drake, his well and the history of the petroleum industry in the United States here on wikipedia. With respect to the events mentioned, they do indeed have to do with Marshall's life. Please read the book before deciding what is appropriate to say about a person's life.70.240.102.6 (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Whether true or not, the phrase "from the early years when uncontrolled production depleted valuable fields and natural gas was burned at the well head, to the decades of energy shortages and the Arab Oil Embargo.", does not say anything relevant about J. Howard Marshall. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the rest of the article. It might fit perfectly into an autobiography, by stylistically, I do not think it belongs on Wikipedia. Also, it is necessary to mention something about Anna Nicole Smith and the ensuing litigation over his estate in order to make the summary complete. Any thoughts? MattDredd (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Please do not make changes for stated reasons and then, when those reasons are proven false, dismiss them as irrelevant. Actually, that phrase does say something about Marshall. He worked in the Department of Interior, on two occasions, precisely on the problems of rapid depletion of resevoirs (law of capture) and industry pricing and production. He authored the Connelly Hot Oil Act. He was also involved in conversations with Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger regarding the futility of the energy price control scheme (devised as a solution to the effects of the Oil Embargo), based on what he learned during the New Deal and WWII. Again, these are events Marshall WAS involved with. Also, there have been additions made to the infobox and the opening paragraph to better reflect his career as a Government official and attorney. Please be more careful with your reversions. Considering that 99% of Marshall's life had nothing to do with Anna Nicole and that Marshall made no mention of Anna Nicole in his autobiography, despite being married to her at the time, but did include his two previous spouses, I do not think it warrants mentioning in the opening. The topic is addressed appropriately in it's own section. Since litigation regarding his estate became a US Supreme Court case, which does have very broad effects, I think you have a fair point that the case needs mentioning in the opening. Lastly, from the history, it appears that this article was previously tagged as one that needed the opening expanded when it contained something similar to what you wrote. If it was not good enough then, it stands to reason that it is not good enough now.70.241.133.254 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely unproductive - we obviously need a third opinion on this. I'm going to make a few points here for a third party to evaluate, and I encourage you to do the same. I'm sure there is some middle ground.

First, what J. Howard considered important enough to put in is autobiography is irrelevant to why he is notable. His marriage to Anna Nicole Smith is (however unfortunately) why many people know about him, and needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Since these edits removing her from the opening paragraph were originally made by an unregistered user (not you, 70.241.133.254), maybe that should be taken with a grain of salt.

Second, I maintain my position that the sentence "from the early years when uncontrolled production depleted valuable fields and natural gas was burned at the well head, to the decades of energy shortages and the Arab Oil Embargo" has nothing to do with J. Marshall on its face. The reasons alluded to above by 70.241 do give it some context, but it is unencyclopedic and really should be omitted.

Third, even if it has been "proven" that the oil industry began in 1859 (a matter of opinion, of course), Marshall's life did not almost span its entirety. That was 150 years ago, Marshall lived to be about 90. At best, his life spanned less than 2/3 of the industry's life as of today. Also since he was presumably not involved in oil production from birth, it remains unclear why we would need to mention this at all.

Fourth, while I freely admit I have never read his autobiography, I believe that that would not be the best source to primarily rely on in any event. We need neutral, third party sources, as per wikipedia guidelines. The link to the NY Times article about Anna Nicole Smith's death, for example, is a neutral, third party source that specifically mentions Marshall's estate.

70.241 - as a personal plea to you, I want to say that this does not have to be antagonistic - we both obviously want the best possible article here. We can accomplish that. Let me know your thoughts. As an act of good faith, I will not make any more changes to the main article until this has been evaluated. MattDredd (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope there is a middle ground. I attempted to compramise with your concerns in two previous edits in light of some of your criticism. I had to log in from another location earlier, so I apologize if there is confusion due to the two different IP addresses. I am not sure what else to do, other than go back to the opening the way is was when all it did was list his previous careers. My main point is that the sentence, as written, is accurate, descriptive and instructive. I think it should remain. I will address your points below.

First, what Marshall included in his autobiography is very important and is telling as to what he considered important. J. Howard Marshall was listed in Who's Who for several decades and was well known in legal, government and business circles well before his marriage to Anna Nicole Smith. He is clearly a notable person who would have an article regardless of Anna Nicole. Considering the totality of the man's life, it is irrelevant to include why people who read tabloids may know him in the opening. Anna Nicole is properly included in the body of the article. There are many articles about well known people on Wikipedia who were married to other well known people who are not mentioned in the opening. I am not sure what difference it makes whether someone is registered or not and that seems like an unecessary insult. MattDredd added Anna Nicole to the opening rather than me removing it. Anna Nicole has not been mentioned in the opening for over 2 years, since the article was reorganized, with hundreds of edits.

Second, Wikipedia does contain biographical articles and the sentence being discussed is factual. The sentence has been reformed several times by more than one user to remove some language it contained that seemed flowery. The sentence is accurate and informative and should remain.

Third, the best facts available (including articles on Wikipedia) demonstrate the validity of the sentence. As MattDredd can clearly read, the oil industry did not exist prior to 1859 and it is not opinion. Most historians would claim 1870-1880. At worst, this is 40 years prior to his birth. The industry had been in existence, at most, 120-136 years. The math puts his life in excess of 2/3 to 3/4 of the industry. It is accurate to say his life spanned nearly the entire history of the industry. The phrase "a majority" could replace "nearly the entire" with no material difference. Attempts to conflate the lifespan of the industry to todays numbers are misplaced. The reason it is informative is that the man essentially grew up with the industry. He was apart of the most dramatic period of change in the formative years of the industry and was involved in most of it's largest events.

Fourth, the article has several vetted, third party sources listed which demonstrate that the article does not entirely rely on one autobiographical source. Additionally, there is no other third party source of comprehensive or accurate information about this person's life apart from his autobiography. His biography also included an independent editor (Robert L. Bradley, Jr.) who did fact checking and additional research. This meets Wikipedia standards. The New York Times article is both irrelevant as it pertains almost exclusively to Anna Nicole and is grossly inaccurate (mentions of estate and trust teachings that have been proven false, excludes state court cases, etc.). It may well be a good source for Anna Nicole's article but has almost nothing to do with this one. The best references regarding Marshall's estate are listed in the Marshall v. Marshall article.70.240.102.6 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, I think there is something we can agree on - if you cite to the court reporter for the Marshall v. Marshall decision, then we obviously won't need to refer to the NY Times article regarding Anna Nicole Smith's death. I only added that only for the parts about the inheritance battle. Just add the legal citations and we should be good to go! MattDredd (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • That sounds reasonable. I'll take a shot at it and then you can let me know what you think.70.240.102.6 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion Glad to see you've resolved the bit about Smith, but I gather, as the request for WP:3O has not been removed, you'd still like some input on the rest. Regarding the specific issue of the autobiography, that's a primary source, and so should be used with care, and replaced with a secondary one, if possible. And, so far as I can tell, that he lived 90 years from a time of uncontrolled production to the Arab Oil Embargo is not, itself, in dispute, so that shouldn't be hard. If there's dispute about whether we should use the phrase "almost the entire history of the oil industry", then I don't see why that can't be left out, or perhaps rephrased as "much of the history of the modern oil industry". After all, 90 years out of 136 isn't "almost all" by any reasonable definition, but I suspect we can agree it's a pretty big chunk. Anaxial (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We still need a third opinion on whether his marriage to Smith should be mentioned in the introduction or not. Also we need to know whether the phrase "from the early years when uncontrolled production depleted valuable fields and natural gas was burned at the well head, to the decades of energy shortages and the Arab Oil Embargo" taken as a whole is appropriate or inappropriate for wikipedia. Thanks 17:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattDredd (talk • contribs)

That phrase does not seem to me inherently unencylcopedic, and most of his career does appear to have been involved with oil one way or the other, so I don't see it as objectionable, either. As for the marriage, I think it's fairly regrettable that the chap is remembered mostly for that by the public, but it appears to be the case. Six of the top ten ghits for the name "J Howard Marshall" are, in fact, at least as much about Smith, which suggests that there is strong interest in this aspect of his life. So I think it's fair to mention it. (Whereas, to pick a random example, none of the top ten ghits about Richard Dawkins are actually about Lalla Ward.) Anaxial (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you input20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am therefore willing to concede the point about the oil sentence. Can we agree to mention his marriage to Smith? I think we could rewrite the last sentence to say: Marshall was married to celebrity Anna Nicole Smith for the last 14 months of his life. After his death, his estate became the subject of protracted litigation between Smith and his son, which remains ongoing. Part of this litigation was reviewed by the Supreme Court in Marshall v. Marshall. MattDredd (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest saying: "Marshall was married to Anna Nicole Smith during the last 14 months of his life. His estate became the subject of protracted litigation which remains ongoing; part of which was reviewed by the Supreme Court in Marshall v. Marshall". Stating Anna Nicole is a celbrity seems redundant. The rest is more succinct and leaves the rest for the article to expound on.70.240.102.6 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll update it. MattDredd (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing information about death

The section titled "Death and ensuing lawsuits" is all about the lawsuits and literally no information about his death. Unless I'm missing something, this section should either be titled simply "Lawsuits" or more detail surrounding his death needs to be filled in.

Also, I removed from this page the WikiProject Football banner and sports-workgroup that was recently added. The article mentions in passing that he used to play soccer and tennis in college, unless there's something else I'm missing, like someone at some point removing unsourced detail from the article that I didn't know about (I didn't search through the history), that's hardly enough to associate him with sports, especially since he's primarily known for being a businessman.. I think if anything WikiProject Business would be a better fit. -- œ^™ 00:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Seems clear to me the context of the section title was that the genesis of the lawsuits was entirely instigated by the event of his death, regardless of cause or circumstance. Considering the numerous positons he held as a lawyer (solicitor with DOI and Committee on Reparations, in-house counsel for Chevron, partner with Pilsbury firm, etc.) it is very safe to assume that just the generic term of "Lawsuits" is not appropriate nor any sort of comprehensive rendition of the lawsuits he was involved in. Maybe the section should have been tilted "Lawsuits ensuing from death." That said, it shouldn't be a problem to add some cursory detail about his death. A quick search could check to see if there is any public information about his death, other than the date which is already included on the page.70.241.89.231 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)