Talk:GEC-Marconi scientist deaths conspiracy theory

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2008. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did someone make up the AP articles?

I highly doubt that these articles are fictionalized because Vassayana can't find them. I sent an email to AP. Where is the best place to search their archive? [www.aparchive.com] seems to emphasize pictures and video, and the other place I found, www.pantagraph.com, doesn't go back pre-1989. II | (t - c) 06:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of local and university libraries should offer a news search service (the method I used), if you have access. The Guardian has an online search available for back issues, which is where I could not verify that source by title. Vassyana (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I'm filing a request for an interlibrary loan of the book provided as a reference. Vassyana (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs serious work

The details of the conspiracy theory need to be provided. The sources need to be confirmed/disproved. Additional solid sourcing is needed. Sourcing indicating notability is needed (it exists and it was reported on are not sufficient in and of themselves). Inline citations indicating where claims are drawn from are needed. The article needs further drastic rewriting and verification. Vassyana (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually content with the article after those good edits you made -- not that it can't use improvement, but most articles can. The descriptions of the individuals appear relatively straightforward. I'm glad that you want to work on it. Some new articles came up in the AfD, the most reliable of which appears to be the book review of that book from New Scientist.[1] II | (t - c) 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words about my edits. I PROD'd it, it was removed by an editor in good standing, and that's the wiki process. In the absence of deletion, some cleanup was (and is) in order. Better to improve it, however incrementally, than to leave it a mess or just complain. I've taken note of the AfD and some of the sources found. I also have a couple of sources requested on interlibrary loan from the mid to late 90s that will hopefully provide some "after the fact" perspective. Vassyana (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of unsourced material

Okay, I have just removed nearly all of the material in the article. I don't have any problem with it in principle, but it is completely unacceptable to tell stories like these without indicating what sources they come from. I am quite willing to believe that the references say these things, but that isn't enough: you have to cite which references say which things. Please feel free to revert my edit if you can provide sources. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer News Ref

Why is this ref being displayed in a different order to the rest. Verbal chat 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...and other SDI related projects..."

How is the sting ray torpedo in any way related to SDI? This is a completely different defence project carried out for a different country, which does not (as far as I am aware) share any technology with satellite defence systems. Is there a reference for this? Otherwise I think this needs to be deleted. Even articles on conspiracy theories should make some sense! Routlej1 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probability

Excerpt from Gator Press.com (based on a larger list linked on the Marconi Scientists article:

The insurance industry uses scientific tables to accurately predict death rates. Based on the 1997 CSO Mortality Tables, the odds that all of these men could collectively die during a 30 month period is a staggering14,000,000,000:1 This makes it logically impossible for any reasonable personto deny that the world's leading microbiology researchers are being murdered, beginning with the anthrax attacks thru right now.

It doesn't matter whether the odds are 14,000,000,000:1 or 14,000,000,000,000,000,000:1 or whatever, it doesn't make these deaths "logically impossible", it makes them "statistically unlikely"...what if all of these scientists had been gathered in one place (not entirely improbable, since they were all linked by profession), and that one place was struck by a meterorite...? They all would have died at once, in much less than a 30 month period...that's not "logically impossible"....to use the term "logically impossible" in this context makes no sense....it's misleading and generally incorrect to use the term "impossible" when discussing statistical matters.

PS...FYI: "thru" isn't a real word, either...I suspect you mean "through".

82.5.68.95 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why are you saying this? Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 deaths

No clue where the 25 deaths came from, not mentioned in the sources I looked at. Its possible it came from the book? But I assume the book to be crackpot quackery, so not exactly reliable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claims on both sides.

The article ends with this nugget: "although most of the scientists had not been working closely together and were working on separate, mostly unclassified, projects." Between 1984 and 1994, SDI was beyond TS (personal experience that obviously can't be sourced). Neither the government, nor the companies themselves, would ever disclose what classified contracts had what contributors. Family members, even in fatal industrial accidents, don't get that information. So, the claim "had not been working closely together" is unverifiable, and is just as tin-foil hat quality as the Apollo 11 soundstage theory. Also, the unclassified projects of TS contractors are completely irrelevant to the classified contracts that were (or were not) shared. In the time frame discussed, they were often simply research boondoggles set up to warehouse employees waiting for their SCAs. Who did what where and when on unclassified contracts has no relevance to the classified work at the core of this theory. The entire line is dubious, regardless of its sourcing.

QuixoteReborn (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator attention required

Why has this article neither been deleted despite nominations or verified for accuracy? As a conspiracy theory claiming truth without evidence , it should be treated with higher importance to determine the article's fate. 92.17.149.46 (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which part do you claim is inaccurate? This is not a conspiracy theory, it is an article about a conspiracy theory. It makes no claims as to the veracity of the theory, merely reports the appropriate sources and what they have claimed about it. Which is as we're constituted to operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]