Talk:Death of Tina Watson

A possible meaning for diving and associated sports section

Taking a read through this section, I think it doesn't belong in the article, at least not in the current state. Right now it reads like someone's analysis of the court decision. It does not read like a report of the facts. By saying that the court "seems" to be saying, we're interesting someone's personal analysis. These examples of people dying, what do they prove? They don't prove anything really. We have no basis to say that they're connected to the death of Tina Watson and the resulting court decision. The last two sentences too seem to be someone's personal analysis. I think this section needs to go. Thoughts? Either way (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You can complete this story in 250 words, or less. Just copy the sentancing comments of the trial judge and even they can be abbreviated. Give it an intro on who Tina Watson was, the current one is OK. Then summarize the appeal as that's documented. However, judges write judgments that create precedent. This is a unique case and it creates unique precedent. That's what the meaning for diving section is for.

What you raise though is a valid point. The entire Wicki is based on newspaper reports, most of which are hearsay and many of which are of doubdtful merit. Where does this leave this Wicki if you apply a good standard. Cannonform (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC) .

There's no proof it's set a precedent though other than the analysis you've added on your own without any sources. We need sources that say it has set a new "rule" of order for diving sports. The two cases presented in this section don't have anything to do with this ruling at all. There's no proof that they in any way were influenced by this court decision. Either way (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The "proof" of the precedent is in the judgement and is the judgement itself. For it not to be a precedent, the Court of Appeal judgement would need to be overturned by the Australian High Court and this was not done. That's the way the law works in both the US and Australia. The judges themselves said this was a unique case.

The fatalities referenced in this section deal with rescue at sea, which is what the Gabe Watson case was all about. There is no issue as a point of logic, whether the individual tragedies I cited, were influenced by the Watson case. But the Law was and such judgements filter their way down through a society over many years. THis is not an objective issue of proof. It is an objective issue of logic.

Let me create an example of what I mean. The average of two numbers, say 1 and 99 is 50 (1+99/2). Most people would I think agree, the three numbers are quite different and the average does not "represent" either of the other two numbers. Others might say, the three numbers are all alike, after all, they all less than 100.

Whether we like it or not, judgements in higher courts (and the Court of Appeal is at the top of the totem) are binding on lower Courts for like cases. Over time, the courts themselves will decide what cases are similiar and what cases are dissimiliar to the precedent creating judgement.

Are the drownings from the beaches like cases and like Watson? As in the example of averages I gave above, I think so and of course there are some differences. Each had to swim quickly through sea water to save life. None of the three succeeded in that mission. Gabe Watson did not attempt it and as he was a rescue diver that led to his manslaughter conviction.

I can also let Wiki readers know that some divers in the US and Aus are now wearing, "I dive alone" t-shirts. Sorry, don't have an authority on that. But I think it's meant to get out the message to fellow divers, "don't expect me to come and help you if you get into trouble. I don't want to end up like Gabe Watson."

Your Wiki pages are not a listing service or a collection of abstracts. In this category in particular, they are designed to inform, not misinform and inclusively cover material. That's why material such as this should remain. IMHO. Cannonform (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC) .

There is absolutely no way to say, though, that those people died because of the impact of the court decision. We cannot say that their thought process was "Oh, man, I have to go save my loved one because of that court decision!" There is no connection other than people died in the ocean while diving. For us to say there is is to be drawing our own conclusions and making our own analysis. Again, if this has set a precedent, we need proof from other sources that it has, not our own conclusions. Either way (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Boys its time to calm down. Both of you.--Sinbad (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Either Way and Sinad, its time to clam down, but let me give this example of the rules of precedent, which as I say, lie in logic and practice, rather than formal proof.

Lets say you are driving along the highway and pass a sign that says 60mph or 60kph and you are doing 70 mph or 70kph. Doesn't matter where you are, most countries have similiar laws on this and you go before a local judge. The police put their case and say this driver was speeding. 10 units over the speed limit. The judge says, "just a minute, our Supreme Court decided last week that sign is illegal, that area has no speed restrictions. This man is not guilty." And off you go, happy as a skylark, to buy your Wiki buddies a beer. The point is, the precedent acted without even you knowing it. It is a precedent because of what it is. It is in its fundamental logical nature. Now of course, you might have been thinking, as you passed the sign, "I know the Supreme Court found that sign to be illegal last week. I'm gonna go flat out". Well, good for you and pray to your patron saint that you intrepeted the precedent correctly. That though is another argument again. --Cannonform (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Logical order

There seems to be a complete lack of order in this article. The investigation part talks about 2008 with an investigation already in progress, then 2007, then 2005, then back to 2008, then to slightly earlier in 2008. The trial and appeal sections both talk about "the media attention" but we have no clue what that media attention is until later on in the article. There needs to be more order to this article. Either way (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not true it has a complete lack of order. Most paras an internally consistent.

I think this is the way it has come into existence, by following events as they happened. I have only been contributing for a few months, then someone changes my stuff and adds a little, so it goes. That seems inherent in the nature of online publications.

The investigation into Tina Watson's death commenced the day she died, as it does with most fatal accidents in Australia. The Queensland police were and always have been the primary investigative authority, initially under the direction of the Queensland Coroner. Alabama police have seeded the media, even inviting them to a raid on Gabe Watson's house. Queensland police have been more cautious in their dealings with journalists as I see it, with a collage of material added by various people at times.

I see you have two options with this story. Write an strongly objective piece of no more than 250 words, precisely cited, no replication, removing all comment to the Thomas flowers etc. But at a level where the story becomes so sterile, few will read it. It was looking good.

Or

Let various people make contributions, which is in the nature of a Wicki, but I'm disappointed with what's come out of this issue. I'm new to wicki, but not writing or forensic science. If this is a community contribution, it will have flaws, but for all those flaws, some unique light should shine through. My view is, that unless you allow this to happen, the idea of the Wicki is lost and we should look to substantial refereed publications for information.

Cannonform (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC) .

Please both of you, take my advice and take a step back and just relax. Stop doing edit wars it is not productive and never elads to anything else but This user wrong, No this user wrong, discussions.--Sinbad (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tag

I've removed the orphan tag from this article. By my count there are 32 links to different articles on Wikipedia. While more would perhaps be appropriate, I believe that this article has enough links to not be "orphaned". Lauryn Ashby (d) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point a orphan tag is not at all appropriate on this article.--Sinbad (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the orphan tag should not have been plaed on the article in the first place by the user making the edit. Its not an orphan article atleast not in my opinion. But we need to reach a consensus. I have all the faith in Lauryns decision and i think we need to respect that. lets hear what Lauryn says first of all.--Sinbad (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The orphan tag should remain! I'm thinking that people are not understanding what is an orphan. It is an article that has very few or no INBOUND link to it. Not one that has lots of outbound links. Please reread the rules. Thanks! fr33kman 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well i think we need some more input on this issue. I personally dont agree but let see what other users say.Thanks--Sinbad (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Only one link from main space and the rest from talk pages. The one valid link is a redirect. Clearly an orphan and re-tagged. -Barras ^talk 17:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so you changed it back. Fine. Would have been mtuch better had we finnished the discussion and together reached a consenus but thats fine with me. It doesnt change the articles GA worth anyway.--Sinbad (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just let the record show that i object to this tag in the strongest of terms. And dont agree with this decision.This is my final comment in the discussion about this article and the wrongfull tag.--Sinbad (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sinbad, can I ask why you believe it is not an orphan. I will be honest it seems quite clear to me. An orphan article is an article that has only a few (or no) other articles link to it. This article has NO other articles linking to it and so is clearly one. You mention that it is not an orphan on en but looking at the En article I would say it should be there as well. As Fr33kman said an orphan is an article without incoming links, this is well written with many OUTgoing links but no incoming. James (T C) 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is most definitely a case for an orphan tag and that pretty much does render any GA chance hopeless - we shouldn't have maintenance tags on our best work. I note a new link to Pelham (where she was "borned") but that's tenuous at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like others to note that I think removing what this means for diving should be put back in. I see either ways comments on why he took them out, and have given them a lot of thought. The difficulty I see is the view you form of an encylopedia. The original French model, developed by such historical figures as Diderot used the term to refer to factual knowledge. It was in effect, an extension of a dictionary, was type set using 18th century technology and in its day unique. Today, the development of the Wicki is of a fundamentally different nature for current affairs articles, but probably not, if you were to write a paper on say, the chemistry of hydrogen. In a current affair article, opinions are important and interpretation is necessary. We are not welded to the 18th century where their efforts were restricted by their technology. Cannonform (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"opinions are important and interpretation is necessary" is not the way we work on Wikipedia. We are based in fact, not opinions. Either way (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag has now been removed after works on the links to the article. By an established user.--Sinbad (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope now we can put this discussion behind us.--Sinbad (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been restored as only two articles link to it at this point. As I said to you on your talk page, please do not needlessly link this everywhere and anywhere. Remember, the incident is notable, not her. Either way (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

The intro gives "Christina "Tina" Thomas Watson", but the Coroner gives "Christina Mae Watson", You must resolve that, or if it can't be decided then discuss it. Either way, the name needs refs, because it is a point of debate. Getting the names and key dates correct is one of the basic rules of biography. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Insurance money

The passage "Tina's father testified that Gabe had asked Tina to increase her life insurance policy and make him the only person who can claim it right before their wedding. He also said that several hundreds of thousands of dollars of insurance money after Tina's death until they named him as a possible murder suspect.[6][7]" is seriously defective:

1. The second sentence is not written in English. What is it trying to say?

2. Neither of the references pertains to the insurance money. They must be replaced by a reference which does verify whatever the sentence is saying. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)