Talk:Hunter S. Thompson obituary spawns "murder" theory

Where is the source for the quote contained in the second paragraph? -edw 02:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is the source indicting HST said his murder would be made to look like a suicide? -edw 02:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; the url is really long(see below) so I showed the actual newspaper source; Its in the Globe and Mail Source that is shown "They're gonna make it look like suicide," he said. '''NOTE; must copy and paste url; can't click on it'''

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050226%2FHUNTER26%2FFocus%2F%3Fquery%3DHUNTER%2BTHOMPSON&ord=1112582568961&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Alexander Pope in a prose convertible By PAUL WILLIAM ROBERTS Globe and Mail Saturday, February 26, 2005, Page F9 Paulrevere2005 02:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to bed so hopefully its ok to remove the tag. If this was anymore straight from the cited sources, I'd be getting a copyvio tag; but feel free to put the tag back. Paulrevere2005 02:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok; I figured out how to get the sources listed properly. I know this is uncomfortable information but please read the source info before registering disputes. I have not put in the inflammatory stuff like the son being allowed to contaminate the crime scene and the fact it doesn't appear that even a ballistics check of the bullet was done(Rocky Mountain News said investigating officer didn't even check the gun); much less a CSI type crime scene investigation.nor was the interviews with his friends included who all,without exception, thought the timing and method of his "suicide" was incredible..so,all in all, I think this article is well toned down to just the basic,core facts. Paulrevere2005 11:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If these 'inflammatory stuff' are fact, then they are ALL YOU HAVE so far. The initial quote from Roberts is clearly in Roberts imagination. You deliberately removed my information concerning that. You deliberately quote him out of context.

• Congrats on digging deeper; good work. I should have read the www.parapolitics.info you linked to but it just looked like a blog. It would've helped had you mentioned the entire Roberts article was there.

You removed the qualifying information concerning the supposed problem with the round .. a solution is proposed in the very next two paragraphs of the story about the event

• this wasn't a "solution" but an unchecked theory + the revelation that he didn't even bother to check the gun (which could've easily proved his theory or not) which seemed to only add to the POV that the investigation was sophmorish.I didn't want to be pushing the "crappy investigation" POV.

If there is a story here, it is only that a widespread consipiracy theory is developing on the internet with little or no evidence apart from the fact that Thompson was working on a 9/11 conspiracy book, that he died of a headshot, and that this has happened to others, plus any inconsistencies you can find with the procedure that found he died of suicide - but so far you have not actually given any of those.

• what is it with this presspeople's addiction to the word "conspiracy?"..it doesn't fit here either...conspiracy among whom?..all we know is he was writing a book about how the wtc collapsed. Also, there is not enough info to produce inconsistencies regarding how he died.There was no CSI type of crime scene forensics, and there is no evidence there was even a ballistics check on the bullet to see if it came from Hunter's gun.We do know the son was allowed to contaminate the crime scene and says he was firing off a shotgun to salute his father's suicide.

You give us a source which requires $$$ to read - and then only quote the publicly displayed 'taster' first paragraph, which I have explained, does NOT reflect the remaining content of the story. Do you have a second source where Roberts actually claims that the first paragraph of his article was fact, and not fiction? It is very clear from the story that he accepts the ruling of suicide, in fact he makes it seem that suicide is how he expected Thompson to go out. - Simeon 03:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• You are 100% correct about this.My mistake, I didn't want to pay for the whole story and I didn't find the blog that you did; again, congrats on good work. Paulrevere2005 13:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK Paul, my comments above seem harsh because I assumed you'd read the story from the Globe and Mail. Correct attribution solves problems like this - ie don't attribute to a source if all you've read of the source is a teaser page, attribute instead to the source you read that said that the teaser was correct ... I assume there was one. The result would look like crap, 'so-and-so-1 said that so-and-so-2 said' but at least would be accurate, and can then be followed up by someone to check if so-and-so-1 was even correct about so-and-so-2's statement, even if we can't check the truth of so-and-so-2.

Really we should always check sources, perhaps in a case where you can't and it seems important but questionable, the questionable stuff should be discussed on the talk page not in the article. Personally I don't really care either way if its all made clear, correct attributions, mention that you can't check it or whatever. Being wiki, its possible to say something and have someone else follow up. But we need to communicate for this to happen.

And re the gun quote, we are pretty much compelled to give the benefit of the doubt, including assuming that police do their job without malice. I know that sounds wrong, skepticism is good, but we can't just report that people are committing crimes without evidence - and altering or withholding evidence is a crime last time I checked. So the guy didn't check the gun properly, that is all we can say. His oversight was understandable and minor, if I understand correctly (I don't handle guns). There is a viable explanation that him messing up in a very slight way accounts for the discrepancy he reported, so explain it that way.

If the rest of the report is correct, ie that the family were at home in other sections of the house/property at the time, it probably accounts for the police being fairly lax in investigating. They tend not to investigate any more than need be. Sure, we can question how rigorous it was, but they were there and we weren't. Without some source saying that there are problems with the investigation, for us to second-guess is an opinion, not a reporting of fact, which is what news reporting is about. If there is such a source, and they're credible, then report them, and leave it at that. But don't leave out important facts in that case. I hope that helps you understand my comments, I was getting a bit exasperated and cynical, probably not very polite. - Simeon 13:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coroner

I changed the bit about the coroner to state that the coroner "ruled" instead of "determined" that Thompson's death was a suicide, to clarify that it was the coroner's professional opinion, and not a detemination of fact.

Also, it would be nice to add a "See also" or "Related stories" section to cite the previous Wikinews obit for Thompson. I'll look for it and add it if someone else doesn't do so first. — DV 12:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I followed up and added the original obituary piece about Thompson in the "Related story" section. — DV 15:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beyond fair use?

I'm concerned about pasting the entire text of the "Alexander Pope in a prose convertible" article, by Paul Roberts. Posting the entire article seems to go beyond fair use. Would anyone mind if we moved that to another page and linked to it instead? — DV 15:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think moving it is an option. "Fair use" means using small portions and small portions isn't well-defined. The entire article is definitely not fair use and should be cut with only a link. And considering that link only goes to a pay-per-view site I'm not sure about that. Globe and Mail want money for that article and moving it off to a separate page isn't the solution. I've been thinking about this aspect for a few hours now since I saw that article attached to the story. Here's a website explaining aspects of fair use.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

From what I garner so far, even the older versions would have to be edited to remove all traces of the article. vlsimpson 15:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If they choose to sue, direct them to me if you like:

Simeon Scott

PO Box 1152

Murwillumbah

NSW 2484

Australia

What they have done is so beyond 'news' that the publicity of a suit against us would hurt them badly, imho. And provide us a lot of traffic that I bet they don't want to give us.

And what we have done by providing the text is no more than is needed to clarify what they have done, which is news worthy, and this is a news site. In my country I have the right to republish what I need to to tell the news, and I am qualified and experienced enough to assert that I needed to publish their story to tell the story, and dispell the myth. And personally, I believe republishing the text was the only ethical choice I had, so sue me.

Personally, I believe the same level of protection exist in the country where I believe the servers are kept, the US, though the details of the protections differ.

What they have done amounts to this: create the widely-held belief of a story which did not exist. Then charge people money to verify to their own satisfaction that in fact the story does not exist. And they have done nothing as far as I can tell, to dispell the misunderstanding which has developed among readers.

With this story they are not selling access to news, they are selling access to verify that given reputed news does not exist. This is immoral, and unethical. And they are very unlikely to encourage that to be widely-known by suing us, in what would be a case that could be argued well in my non-lawyer opinion.

The technical method by which their teaser paragraph system works is irrelevent - if they argued that the first par is lifted automatically by a web server, not a human, then it's up to their editors to ensure that the first par of each story does not present a misleading picture of the full article, as this one did.

Even if they did decide to assert that we were infringing, the first step is a take-down notice afaik, and usually if that is complied with, then no further action is taken, afaik. Not that I personally advocate complying if they did.

I am confident that we would be protected under Fair Use/Fair dealing because there are flexible protections for telling of news, which exist for just this sort of case.

Other considerations are whether we make profit (we don't - I don't) and whether we harm their profit. It is hard to argue that by writing a story linking to their site, we have diminished their profit. To make such an argument, they would have to explain how their story was hooking a great many readers, and tell people just how much money they made from this. Information which I am pretty skeptical that they would want in the public domain.

I'm happy enough that the full text is there in our history, and not in the main article text. There are strong arguments in my opinion that it needs to be viewed by our editors (ie us and anyone else who wants to edit) in order for anyone to understand the story well enough to work on it.

And in fact, even if my quote of their full text was permanently visible in the main article, I would stand in court and swear that our story has if anything increased the number of people purchasing the story from them even with the full text, since there are those who would like to check that we have quoted the site correctly. And I suspect web server logs would prove this increased traffic coming from our site.

The only harm that we are likely to make to their profit would come about not as a result of our reducing traffic to this article, but by the reduction of their reputation as a news source - a matter outside the realm of copyright, and purely of their own making.

I would find it particularly unethical to be driving paying traffic to their site as the only option to verify the story. This is called, rock and a hard place - unethical to wholesale quote copyrighted material, unethical to assist with duping masses of people just in order for someone else to make some money. I know which choice of action I prefer.

- Simeon 07:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• After this experience, I will never use a pay-per-view article as a source again and I wonder whether there should be a general ban or discouragement on using pay-per-view articles as sources? Paulrevere2005 19:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion only, it's not a question of the source of the source so to speak, but its usefulness to other editors. I'm not willing to fork out money to read something to double check material someone posts here on wikinews. I wouldn't ban it but I wouldn't encourage it either. My main point in my above comment was directed at its final use. No matter how you attribute the source or what the intention, you just can't post the whole thing. I could go on a didactic screed regarding copyright and all but no one wants that I'm sure. 8-] Plus I'm no expert on it. I know just enough to make me paranoid about what sources I utilize to produce my stuff. vlsimpson 21:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have run up against the decision to pursue a source of information for a price. I have chosen not to. The only reason I chose not to was out of being cheap and also thinking the truth can and ultimately and will be revealed without an expenditure. I do believe, as this is a public domain, that contibutions should be based on information content that is free. Afterall, our reporting is free. -edw 07:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stale sources

These cite links used in this wikinews article are now stale, here are archive links:

• abcnews only page 1 of 2 cached
• parapolitics

Some of the rest are also stale, but I am too lazy to dig them all up. -84.223.78.86 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}
'a a' => 'a' Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done — Gopher65_talk 01:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)