Talk:Murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge.--Muzilon (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

---

I don't think Wikipedia needs two separate articles about this case, and would suggest that the biography of Scott Watson (which is actually better-written than this article) should be merged here as per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Cf. David Tamihere, whose name redirects to Murder of Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen. --Muzilon (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds cited by OP. This article has received little attention and lacks updates in its current state. Makes sense to merge Watson article into this. Akld guy (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment: in the absence of any dissenting voice after one month, I shall proceed with the merger.--Muzilon (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arrival on Tamarack?

"After leaving the party and discovering that the boat they had arrived on, Tamarack, was overcrowded..." Someone with better knowledge of the case can probably answer this, but my understanding was that it was only Olivia Hope who arrived at the lodge on Tamarack, and Ben Smart had travelled independently.--Muzilon (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You are correct and I've changed the wording accordingly. Akld guy (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Expansion

This article as currently written is short on detail and fails to identify that this is one of the more controversial murder convictions in NZ history. It needs expanding. AngelaHarseldorf (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Get some reliable sources and start expanding the article, AngelaHarseldorf. If you need a hand with how things work, you can ask for help right here. Schwede66 19:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Other Events

I started the Wikipedia page “Scott Watson” long ago. Now it has been merged into this article, which is of course about the disappearance of Ben and Olivia. There seems to me to be no relevance to the two matters listed under Other events, i.e. Scott’s marriage and assault convictions. I propose to delete that section. RogerWNZ (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC) RogerWNZ

Oppose: provided the sources are WP:RELIABLE, Wikipedia articles about notable murder cases normally include pertinent facts about the accused's activities subsequent to their conviction – even if the accused is paroled, even if that conviction is later overturned on appeal or retrial. See Bain family murders, Murder of Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen, Murders of Gene and Eugene Thomas, and Larnoch Road murders. Having said that, a case could be made for omitting the name of Watson's wife per WP:BLPNAME (cf. David Bain's marriage). Muzilon (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Watson's conviction has been controversial for over 20 years and is reported in many sources as a potential miscarriage of justice. @Stumpy2121 has made hundreds of edits to this article. He clearly believes Scott Watson is guilty and his edits are highly selective, often coming from equally biased sources such as Ian Wishart who is described on his own wikipedia page as a 'professional controversialist'. Wishart also believes Watson is guilty. See Ian Wishart releases damning evidence on Scott Watson.

This article needs to reflect the uncertainty surrounding Watson's conviction, rather than the one-sided view put forward by Stumpy2121. At the moment it breaches WP:NPOV. Dubiousources (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The article as it was written clearly addressed the controversies. with every piece of evidence i included the defense arguments. If you felt it was biased, you should have edited not deleted.

It seems to me you are the one doing deletions. Since you started editing this page again, you have made 27 edits, the vast majority of which are deletions. Dubiousources (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

there is a lot to fix Stumpy2121 (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that you are vandalsing this page as the majority of your edits are to remove detailed summaries of the evidence/investigation and replace them with nonsense like editorialised quotes. An authors opinion doesn't help explain the case, stick to facts.

That's why this case is so controversial. Every single "fact" is disputed.Dubiousources (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

so include both sides to the facts, dont just ad hock delete them

wallace saw the mina cornilia photo and still said scott did it, that is a fact. explain how he flip flopped and became adamant scott was innocent later on. dont delete Stumpy2121 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to edit this page to fit an agenda. If you feel the facts need to be deleted you have no place here.

Highlight some "facts" you think I have deleted. Dubiousources (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

there are many.

You deleted that multiple people said the mystery ketch was in the same location of the blade, that the ketch was said to be moored to three boats that were never found, that part of the reason police focused on Scott was due to his actions towards women that nigh, his past comments about murder and his racist tattoos, him intimidating witnesses... you deleted that morresey didnt say ketch until after his interview, the drawing of the ketch (not sure why) the police sketch that wasnt a good match (not sure why) etc etc etc

you removed quite a bit of the information about this case and focused on the police having it out for scott spreading rumours

its transparent Stumpy2121 (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There is an issue with this case regarding bias in sources, i agree. If we must exclude Wishart we must also exclude John Goulter, Mike Kalaugher, Keith Hunter and Mike White to a certain extent

Wishart is not excluded. There were three sentences about him before you vandalised that section of the article. Dubiousources (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

seemed like you initial comment here is suggesting that Wishart is not a reliable source Stumpy2121 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wishart is not a reliable source. He is a publicity seeker. See his [wikipage| wikipage]. Dubiousources (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

you cannot claim a photo shows someone as clean shaven because that is your opinion, the photo is low res and up for interpretation. Hence why i added the very neutral "purportedly" Stumpy2121 (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong photo. See the photo second from bottom here. It is not low res - it is crystal clear and not open to interpretation at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubiousources (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

dead link Stumpy2121 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I think this is the correct Herald link: [1] Muzilon (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

much appreciated, but id rather use the one i linked to discuss this as it is much higher res Stumpy2121 (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

the same photo fetured in this article?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/122287072/scott-watson-says-hell-never-get-justice

his hair is not short and he clearly has stuble that the flash is overpowering. see the grey above his lip and under his skin. he looks scruffy here.

it is open to interpretation, especially considering that people who knew Scott described him as unshaven and scruffy that night Stumpy2121 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No they didn't. They described the unknown 'mystery man' as unshaven and scruffy. You think that was Watson - which shows how biased you are - the clean shaven photo proves it was not. Dubiousources (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

on page 18 of the affidavit review by jones [2] you can see that G. Hall, R. Queree, V. Eastgate, S.ZajkowskiI and L.McKay KNEW SCOTT and described him as unshaven that night.

you are incorrect. we should prob add this to the wiki huh Stumpy2121 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This page needs to be locked

This case is going to appeal in may and there are many who feel strongly about it. This page is ripe for vandalism as we have just seen. Im not pretending my contribution is perfect, but it does cover the case farily accurately. Is it possible to lock the page Muzilon (im new to editing source, sorry if this was wrong) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumpy2121 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator (just an ordinary editor) so I can't do that. You can submit a request for page protection here: WP:RFPP. Muzilon (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the help Stumpy2121 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the concern expressed All edits of 1 -3 Jan by a new-ish editors should be reverted. There is substantial opinion and loaded terminology. I would revert all 100+ edits myself but thought an admin might be more appropriate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

ive had a good go at reverting everything myself, while including some of the new info added

as it stands now it seems like a fairly complete article, but i dont want more people to edit it to fit their view of the case rather than the totality of the case.

i have applied for it to be locked, let's see how that goes Stumpy2121 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the admins have rejected the request for page protection. Muzilon (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

that's a shame. guess we will jus have to wait and see if the page gets vandalised again Stumpy2121 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A mildly amusing response. You may have firm opinions, have read a book or two and seen the odd TV doco, but that was a High Court case and this is an encyclopedia: this is not a re-trial nor an online blog. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

you removed my sentence summarising what Witness A said in court, which is detailed in the cited article. this seems relevant to the section about their testimony.

you also objected to me doing multiple minor edits making the article more readable.

go ahead and tell me why Stumpy2121 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You might be well intentioned but we have to be careful here not to take isolated snippets of detail and say or imply what we think they mean or what really happened. That is what happens in a court room. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

either show me where i have been inaccurate or incomplete or refrain from making further frivolous edits Stumpy2121 (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about Scott Watson, the murderer, or about his trial. You are giving him far too much weight. The notable points that attract media and public attention should be mentioned but with weight. Remember too that much of the media coverage is not a good secondart source - it often just repeats someone's opinion and is full of loaded non-neutral wording. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This article IS about Scott Watson, his page was merged with this page in 2018 and "Scott Watson" redirects here. This article is absolutely about the trial as it was one of the most highly publicised and controversial trials in NZ history. The murder of Ben and Olivia is only notable primarily due to the media coverage and speculation about the investigation and trial.

if you feel i have fallen short of NPOV you are welcome to edit the article making it more neutral citing that reason or mention your specific concerns here. but any article about this murder is incomplete without discussing the aspects of the trial/investigation that multiple books/docs were made about, and remain subject to public speculation even recently (see Paul Henrys recent opinion piece) Stumpy2121 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

'Focus on Guy Wallace' says Guy Wallace said he felt tremendous pressure from police and the media. He was interrogated by the detectives from Christchurch CIB who he claimed suggested he was somehow responsible for the disappearance of Hope and Smart. He also claimed that as a result of accusations against him by the police, some locals began treating him with suspicion. He said that in the initial stages of the investigation, he felt that the police were desperate to arrest someone, and it could easily have been him. This is taken from a Herald article. So, Wallace didn't think much of the way the police treated him and he thought the police though he was involved in the murder somehow. We know that because Wallace told the Herald that is what he thought and the Herald reported that. That is irrelevant. More than that it gives an impression that the police were doing something wrong, were making a hash of the whole investigation. It is re-hearing the case, is advocating for Watson, which is not the subject of this article. You have to be careful using sources that cater for one audience and hence adjust their written style accordingly. The main point of interest in this case IMO is the conviction without a body. That is barely touched on. Instead the article leans heavily towards showing how questionable the evidence was that led to his conviction. That is not the job of WP. Yes, of course the media attention about a possible miscarriage has to be mentioned, but not to the extent where it takes over the article. If this article was about Watson it would be called Scott Watson, but it isn't, so it isn't. Scott Watson isn't notable enough outside this case to warrant his own article. It's the same as the Chc mosques murderer and David Bain who also get redirected. Perhaps I was a bit unfair saying all your changes should be reverted because there does seem to be some genuine improvements, to structure, layout and style. I now think it is best to let your constant changes run their course and look at the article again once you have finished. My hunch is that it will get heavily trimmed back at some point, as has happened many times before, here and in other similar articles - for the same reason that this is not an advocacy article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you about the section on Guy Wallace. I did not add that section. I am cautious about deleting something like that as he did say those things publicly. All i added was the info about his testimony and the fact he recanted after the trial. i also added his unusual media statements for balance. Despite my concern about the section, I would argue that the fact he recanted after the trial and adamantly said Watson wasn't the guy in media/affidavits is relevant and should be mentioned in this article somewhere, because it is a source of significant speculation about this murder.

The conviction without a body is not raised in any credible source that i can find. if you have a credible source that raises the issue, i encourage you to add to the article.

The article does not lean to how "questionable" the evidence is, it clearly states what the crowns arguments were and what defense countered with/what people have speculated about in books/media. One cannot address the evidence in this case without addressing the controversy people have created about said evidence.

An article about the murders and an article about Watson are the same thing. I appreciate your condescending feedback, if you feel the article should be edited i encourage you to do so with cited sources.

My only aim is that anyone viewing this article will be adequately informed on the murder and ensuing investigation/case, as they are inseparable

If you have improvements, please add them. Otherwise cease your bloviating Stumpy2121 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that i have now been accused of having a bias both for and against Watson which is a sure sign the article is approaching neutrality, which is the goal Stumpy2121 (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You might fine some fresh angles [3] regarding the legal aspects of the case, which is still not really about the murder. The legal cases and the trial are what IMO is notable, not Scott Watson. There might be a case for separating the Watson case from the murder article. There has been talk recently of pulling together all the recent high profile cases into one article too. There does appear to be a lack of consistency with some high profile convicts having their own article and others not, where the article is about the murder itself. This is not dependent on whether a conviction has been overturned. See Jeremy Bamber, the White House Farm murders, Lundy murders, Teina Pora. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Your link is dead.

"The legal cases and the trial are what IMO is notable, not Scott Watson." how does one separate the two? the trial was about Watson.

"There might be a case for separating the Watson case from the murder article." there is little to discuss regarding the murder, only the circumstance of the duo before they went missing. this does not warrant a separate article.

This article should be about the disappearance, investigation and subsequent trial. That is what it currently is about.

You need to clarify what specific parts of this article you object to. As it stands it is difficult to discern what your point is. Stumpy2121 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Gerald Hope's perspective

@Stumpy2121 has deleted the section on Gerald Hope's perspective with a one word justification - NPOV. What does this mean? Does Stumpy think Gerald Hope is not neutral - or is he referring to something else? Considering that Gerald's daughter is one of the two missing victims, his comment to Watson that "You and I are both victims. We never got the truth. We haven't got the truth yet" is remarkable for its neutrality. If you want to remove this section, you need to explain why in some detail - not just write NPOV which doesn't explain anything.

I would add that since Gerald Hope is the father of one of the victims, his perspective is a 'significant view' which WP:NPOV dictates should be included. Dubiousources (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Gerlads perspective is included, but the interview was not just about his view as noted by mention of the appeal that had to be made to get said interview.

the section is about the interview not just Gerlads view, hence the title change Stumpy2121 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It isn't signicant whatsoever. He is not an investigator, expert or witness. 80.57.2.97 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Focus and purpose of article

@Stumpy2121 and @Roger 8 Roger have been discussing what should or should not be in this article. Theoretically, I agree with Roger8 that the article is not about Scott Watson. Its about the disappearance of the two victims. However, Scott Watson is accused of causing their disappearance. So the article largely ends up being about him.

However, the reality is that everything we know about Watson's role in the disappearance of the victims is contested. The police claim Watson is responsible. The defence, a number of reputable journalists (Ian Wishart excluded) and much of the public believe he is not responsible. Even Gerald Hope is not sure that Watson is responsible. In other words, the case is highly controversial and is described as one of New Zealand's potential miscarriages of justice. In order to be neutral, this article needs to present all this information.

Roger8 says "the article leans heavily towards showing how questionable the evidence was that led to his conviction. That is not the job of WP." Wiki policy on this issue is pretty clear. See WP:NPOV. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Therefore it is the job of WP to report both sides of the case, demonstrate that the case is highly controversial and that the evidence which led to Watson's conviction is questionable. This is the 'significant view' of many reputable commentators. Dubiousources (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I just raised this discussion here Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Theoretically, I agree with Roger8 that the article is not about Scott Watson. Its about the disappearance of the two victims."

the article is about their disappearance and the subsequent investigation/trial. the article would be incomplete if scott's role investigation or trial was not mentioned in detail as it is what these murders are notable for.

"However, the reality is that everything we know about Watson's role in the disappearance of the victims is contested."

the article states what happened, nothing more nothing less. if you feel the article is inaccurate i encourage you to make it more neutral with cited sources.

"Even Gerald Hope is not sure that Watson is responsible. In other words, the case is highly controversial and is described as one of New Zealand's potential miscarriages of justice. In order to be neutral, this article needs to present all this information. "

opinion of the case should not preclude this article from accurately covering what happened during the investigation and trial. the article mentions Geralds view and the media questioning the case. This article is focused on what the facts were primarily. if you feel different start a blog. if you feel it is inaccurate, edit with reliable sources.

"Therefore it is the job of WP to report both sides of the case, demonstrate that the case is highly controversial and that the evidence which led to Watson's conviction is questionable."

the article presents the evidence of the case with the defense arguments or any speculation about said evidence. what more would you ask?

"This is the 'significant view' of many reputable commentators."

if you wish to create a section regarding the theories about the case, as long as you dont treat them as fact rather than theories i would not object. Stumpy2121 (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a big problem with these types of cases is the sources used. They are nearly always advocacy articles with a lot of inbuilt bias. Even Ian Wishart is merely giving his personal opinion, and that is how it is published by North and South. Those views have to be presented I agree but too often they smother the fact that Watson is a convicted murderer, whose repeated appeals have failed. What would create balance I think is to give more coverage to how the police and prosecution managed to get a guilty verdict, especially without any bodies. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"However, Scott Watson is accused of causing their disappearance. "

No, he has been CONVICTED. 80.57.2.97 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If we give more coverage to how the police and prosecution managed to get a guilty verdict without any bodies, that would open up the article to the multiple concerns expressed by numerous commentators, including Gerald Hope, that the police and prosecution used some highly dodgy tactics to gain the conviction. Dubiousources (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

the only citation to Ian Wishart that remains is in relation to the books he wrote.

"What would create balance I think is to give more coverage to how the police and prosecution managed to get a guilty verdict"

the trial is explained in significant detail, the trial is what led to the conviction. have you read the article Stumpy2121 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

'The mystery ketch' as written by Mike White in N&S= Public reports of boats similar to the description flooded in during the weeks after the disappearance, sometimes dozens of reports for a single boat that police had already eliminated.[12] A number of witnesses who came forward with sightings of a ketch were either told their information was not wanted, or their statements were not followed up. Police being uninterested in new information regarding a ketch was an abrupt change and because the public was given little reason why, some began to distrust the investigation. Why is this here in the section about the trial? It is a clear put down of the police and is one man's unsubstantiated opinion. Stumpy, "Have I read the article"? How condescending! BTW, sentences start with capital letters. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

it is true that a number of reports about a mystery ketch were not followed up because they were reporting a boat police had already eliminated. due to the publicity surrounding the case Police were getting multiple reports about any single boat with two masts in the days after the disappearance.

I understand you have strong views on this case. this is not the place to voice them. I understand the desire to have a chin wag about the case, please do so on social media. not here Stumpy2121 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, this is not in the section about the trial, it is in the section about the investigation Stumpy2121 (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Stumpy2121, you do not know my views on the case because I haven't given them. What I have given is an opinion that this case can, and has been in the past, easily taken off course, specifically by people advocating for a miscarriage. You appear with numerous edits, many of which are minor word changes, and at the same time there is a request for a page lock from someone else. You also contribute to this talk page as do many new editors, with a lack of presentation tidiness, and you also have thrown accusations at me that indicate a lack of knowledge about how WP works. My initial view was therefore that you were another of these advocate newbies that appear on pages like this. But, I can see you are not and are genuine and not a newbie. I now hope there can be a more constructive debate about this article, and others like it, as with my comments on the NZ page linked to above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, lets work towards a more constructive conversation Stumpy2121 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Single editor ownership

@Stumpy2121 you are editing this page as if you think you have the sole right to edit this article the way you see it. And that you have the right to remove edits by anyone else. See WP:OWN.

WP:OWN states "If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages edit wars, try to ignore disruptive editing by discussing the topic on the talk page. If ownership persists after a discussion, dispute resolution may be necessary, but at least you will be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with the editor. It is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc. It may also be wise to allow them to withdraw from the conversation and return when they are ready."

You don't seem to be able to co-operate with other editors. You consistently breach wiki policy and rules by engaging in personal attacks (see WP:NPA), disruptive editing (see WP:DE) and edit wars (see WP:EW). I am giving you the opportunity to reflect on your editing and temporarily withdraw from further contributions to this page. Dubiousources (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, YOU are the one who thinks you own the page. 80.57.2.97 (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have repeatedly encouraged you and others to contribute to the page through edits. Im sorry you feel attacked.

The amount of edits I have contributed is immaterial, as I have said before my aim is to get the article to neutrality and I know of no other way than repeated re-reads/edits. If you feel an edit I have made is incorrect I encourage you to contribute.

You have removed the fact that Watson painted blade and removed its weathervane. Citing npov. I would argue this evidence that was raised at court is relevant, how would you suggest it be added in a more neutral way? I tried by adding defense argument but you reversed it. Stumpy2121 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Show me the specific link where you added the defence argument and the second link where I reversed it. Dubiousources (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murders_of_Ben_Smart_and_Olivia_Hope&diff=1131785844&oldid=1131764293

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murders_of_Ben_Smart_and_Olivia_Hope&diff=1131798652&oldid=1131797283 Stumpy2121 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know know why I deleted that one sentence. I think I was trying to delete the whole paragraph. However, I don't think this detail (which is based on police speculation) is sufficiently cogent to include. Dubiousources (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Scott does not deny that he painted the blade or stowing the weathervane in the days following the disappearance. This is not police speculation, he painted the upper cabin of the blade blue. What reasoning do you have to exclude the fact a man accused of murder painted his boat immediately after the people he is accused of murdering went missing? This was an important issue that was raised at trial. Please explain your reasoning as to why this important aspect of the trial should not be included. Stumpy2121 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"This revealed the vessel had been repainted since 1 January 1998, changing its colour. The Defence maintained Mr Watson had had plans to paint his boat for some time and there was nothing unusual about that." Page 29 of Mcdonalds report [4]

do we just re add the paragraph with that exact line? Stumpy2121 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Editing style

@Stumpy2121. Can you please post comments as all other editors do without creating a space between each sentence. For instance; your contribution above is as follows:

I have repeatedly encouraged you and others to contribute to the page through edits. Im sorry you feel attacked.

The amount of edits I have contributed is immaterial, as I have said before my aim is to get the article to neutrality and I know of no other way than repeated re-reads/edits. If you feel an edit I have made is incorrect I encourage you to contribute.

You have removed the fact that Watson painted blade and removed its weathervane. Citing npov.

I would argue this evidence that was raised at court is relevant, how would you suggest it be added in a more neutral way? I tried by adding defense argument but you reversed it.

Please write it like this (although if it is really long you might need a space between paragraphs):

I have repeatedly encouraged you and others to contribute to the page through edits. Im sorry you feel attacked. The amount of edits I have contributed is immaterial, as I have said before my aim is to get the article to neutrality and I know of no other way than repeated re-reads/edits. If you feel an edit I have made is incorrect I encourage you to contribute. You have removed the fact that Watson painted blade and removed its weathervane. Citing npov. I would argue this evidence that was raised at court is relevant, how would you suggest it be added in a more neutral way? I tried by adding defense argument but you reversed it.

This makes it much easier to read and uses less space. Dubiousources (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem, will do Stumpy2121 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Title

Is there a better title for this article? If we aren't going to keep the article detail just to the murder and leave out most of what happened afterwards, which is all about Watson, we won't be left with very much. Therefore, is it better to make this an article about Scott Watson, or his conviction? If so the title is wrong. Even if we do keep the title, because of what the article is about - Watson's disputed conviction, should we remove the word 'murders'. No bodies? One major option is they were never murdered and were kidnapped. It all comes back to the title and the article being out of sinc. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

if this article was just about the murder, but left out the investigation and trial it would be incomplete.

would you have this article just summarise their actions that night and the fact they went missing? or does it make sense that an article about their disappearance should cover the subsequent investigation and trial about their disappearance?

Watsons conviction for murdering these kids cannot be separated form an article about their murder. he is convicted for murdering them

abandon the idea that the absence of bodies shows anything, convictions without bodies are bog standard practice Stumpy2121 (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The current title is in accordance with WP:CRIME, WP:DEATHS, WP:MURDER, and WP:SINGLEEVENT: "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person." Wikipedia formerly had a separate article about Scott Watson, but if you scroll up you'll note it was merged into this one back in 2018 with no dissenting voice. At the time I cited the case of David Tamihere, who was also convicted of a double murder without bodies – he does not have a standalone biography, and his name redirects to Murder of Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen. Muzilon (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the merger. I was really pointing out that this article has gone very heavily into the conviction and arguments pointing to a wrongful conviction. Despite efforts to maintain a neutral approach it is inevitable the article can be seen as promoting his innocence. I think the 'not guilty' arguments should be kept to a minimum and we must accept that he was found guilty. I think the article could and should be cut back by 50%. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be opposed to a WP:SPINOUT article dealing specifically with the trial and appeals. It could be entitled The Queen v. Watson or similar. Muzilon (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's possible; there would have to be more input from others first though. I am aware that other articles are not dissimilar to this one and they are not split, Bain for example. Another option is to change the title to widen it from just the murders, as does the 'Bain family murders' does that. 'The 'White House Farm murders'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the title of the current article needs to be changed. Per WP:MURDEROF, when there are only 1 or 2 murder victims, the title normally mentions them by name. If there are 3 or more victims then something more general like "Bain family murders" is used, as naming all the victims would result in a lengthy and cumbersome title. Muzilon (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, good point, I had not considered that as being the reason for a more general title. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Repeated edits to introduce bias into this article

On review, this article has once again been aggressively edited to shift its POV from Neutral to an article that primarily tries to argue that this was a wrongful conviction. I would question why someone who thinks this was a wrongful conviction would want anything other than a neutral recounting of the facts, as a neutral recounting should be sufficient to prove their position to be correct.

Some examples:Edited to remove similarities between descriptions of Watson and the description of the mystery man; removal of the fact that people could identify Watson at the bar; Aggressive removal of all comments where Wallace said he was sure the man in the blink photo was the mystery man; Wholesale fabrication of Wallace quotes; removal of Wallace viewing the mina cornelia photo and still saying he was sure Watson was the mystery man; removal of reference to questions about Wallace's credibility in later life; saying the mina cornelia photo shows Watson as clean shaven, which is contested; removal of police eliminating all ketches in the area; implying that sightings of boats days after the disappearance were ignored rather than sightings of eliminated boats (police went as far as fiji search for the ketch); removal of the nature of the crime Watson was convicted for a year prior; removal of Watson's offensive tattoos (which police took into account); inaccurate characterization of the tapes from operation celt; saying that the police allowed gossip about the watson family to spread, depite this being investigated and no evidence of this was found (fine to say Watson accused them of this, just dont say it is fact); REMOVAL OF ALMOST ALL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL in lieu of suggesting the core of the case was essentially the prison confessions; removal of the actual nature of the prison confessions; removal of Watson painting his boat; removal of fingerprint expert evidence; removal of squab evidence; removal of hatch evidence; wholesale mischaracterization of the case agasinst watson; removal of witness testimony about Watsons whereabouts on jan 1; Wholesale mischaracterisation of the accuracy of the DNA evidence, saying police misled the jury about the accuracy of the result; stating police pressured prison witnessess as fact despite investigations finding no evidence of this; claims that witness b was bribed as a fact which has not been proven either; Extreme mischaracterization of the IPCA investigation findings.

i could go on. This article is no longer remotely accurate or informative. i intend to completely revert it. Is there no way to stop this user pushing their agenda here? Muzilon Dubiousources Stumpy2121 (talk)

See WP:Dispute Resolution. (I'll just mention that I personally have stuck mainly to copy-editing rather than adding or removing content.) Muzilon (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

i appreciate the edits you have contributed, i am a novice wiki user and they have been very helpful.

It seems clear to me that this article should be reverted. Am i blinded by my own bias here? i tried to explain how much uncontested info was removed and how much info was presented with a bias. Are you willing to weigh in? I dont take reverting lightly Stumpy2121 (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't profess to have studied the trial evidence closely enough to comment in detail. If you only take exception to the edits of one other editor here, you could request an independent WP:THIRDOPINION. Otherwise, the matter can be referred to WP:DRN. Muzilon (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

its not about any one editor, just about anyone who views this page being accurately informed. one could argue that the fact he painted his boat and this was talked about at trial means it should be mentioned here at the very least. But thanks for the advice, ill check it out Stumpy2121 (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Whatever your concerns are you need to address them on the Talk page one by one, item by item. Starting an edit war will not be helpful.Dubiousources (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

how do i address someone who deletes almost all of the evidence presented at trial? who pretended that the prison confessions were paramount to the crowns case?

why are you so afraid of people seeing all of what was presented at trial? why cant you endure this article being accurate? Stumpy2121 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

it's very hard to imagine why we would exclude information from readers. how can we justify that?

we want readers to not understand the case? Stumpy2121 (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. You do not own this page. See WP:OWN. You need to be more patient. Decisions about content on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. You have to wait to see if other editors agree with you. At the moment, they don't. Dubiousources (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As a random example of irrelevant biased wording, see 'Publcity during the investigation'. It is reporting gossip and hearsay with a very clear anti-police, pro-Watson slant. And to top it all, it is supported by an article in Womans Weekly. Stumpy, this is not the place to advance your very clear belief that Watson is not guilty. This article has been used before, years ago, to promote a cause and that was stopped and reverted. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Uh, but Dubiousources said (above) that Stumpy was arguing that Watson *is* guilty. Which is it? Muzilon (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited article is written by Mike White, who is one of NZ's most reputable journalists from North and South magazine. North & South is not available online, but the article has been reprinted in full in the Women's Weekly. Dubiousources (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I probably should have kept out of this latest edit spree and let it run its course. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So YOU are the one who keeps editing this page? I knew nothing about this case but I was immediately struck by its biased content. 80.57.2.97 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

One sentence at a time

@Stumpy2121. Lets see if we can get agreement on this sentence in the lede: "The case remains the subject of on-going speculation in New Zealand as a possible wrongful conviction and has been the subject of several books and documentaries." What are your concerns about that? Dubiousources (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Severly biased article

It offers no objective evidence. Please edit. 80.57.2.97 (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)