Talk:Somerton Man

Somerton Man was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 20, 2009). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Australia: Adelaide / Crime Start‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Somerton Man is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Since his identity remains unknown, his exact age does too, so stating that the deceased was 45 years old makes no sense. I'm editing to reflect this.71.63.119.49 23:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamam Shud

In the body of this document the Persian word "Tamam" is consistenty misspelt as "Taman." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.160.119 (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelt as "Taman" in all the sources I have referenced. I think it was an error made back when the case was first written about that people have continued.--Roisterer (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article

Excellently-sourced article, my congratulations and thanks to its creators; it seems worth applying for Good Article status as a history article. If nobody wants to take the initiative, I may return and nominate it myself. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is that coffin about two feet too short to hold a person limbs-intact? It seems more like a child's coffin, were his remains in such poor condition following the inquest he was just stacked into such a small coffin, or are my eyes playing tricks on me? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will make inquiries to check with the undertaker whose uncle and father were the undertakers for that burial. Certainly the grave itself is a normal sort of size. There are two other people buried in the same grave, but presumably they are stacked underneath as this is what is normally done (up to some maximum limit) when grave leases expire. Complexitydaemon (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think the reason that leapt to mind was I saw the awkwardly-worded phrase "the man's left arm was lying beside his body" which implied (wrongly, I think?) that his arm had been severed. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was still all attached. Have changed the wording. Coffin wasn't unusually sized. Complexitydaemon (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taman Shud

I'm new to Wikipedia so please forgive any undeliberate errors.

Two points:

1. In the the list of persons associated with the case, it lists Clive Mangnoson as someone who tried to solve the identity of the deceased. Surely Clive M was the 2 year old son of Keith Waldemar M? Clive was found dead in 1949 and Keith badly hurt. I believe Keith died in 1991.

2. Regarding the visits by an unknown woman to the grave of the deceased, I have read that a) the woman was never traced and b) she was traced and said she knew the man but police thought she was lying and c) she was traced and said she never knew the man. Don't know which is true but why visit a graveyard in the middle of the night if you didn't know the deceased?

Hope I've not disregarded any site protocol but this case interests me. Mainly because I have loved the Rubaiyat for many years and can see how easily it can be used cryptographically.

Lumpur200889 (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Lumpur;

1. It doesn't make that claim the in the article, don't know where you've gotten that,

2. Wikipedia works on verifiability not truth, if you can cite these sources then great. What will get editors jumping up and down is speculation, called Original Research here.

If you have a copy of the edition of The Rubiyat involved in the case, a group of students at Adelaide University would love to hear from you--their lecturer has set solving the mystery as a class assignment! They can be contacted through the ABC's Stateline program. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can contact them through me. My email. Re point 1, the claim is made on a separate wiki, linked but not referenced from this page. I will encourage the author of that page to reference the timeline appropriately and move it onto the wikipedia page. Re point 2, that flowers were left on the grave was discussed in the 1978 Inside Story episode (so that part could be included on the wikipedia page, will add it myself if no one else dose). Haven't heard any speculation on if she was traced, and that should be left off the main wiki page. The nurse involved in the case was traced, but she had moved to Sydney. Not sure if she moved back to Adelaide. Complexitydaemon (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edition is from 1964 so not the same edition. It does have both versions of the Rubaiyat: the 1859 first edition that had 75 verses and ended with the words 'Tamam Shud' and the 1889 edition that had 101 verses and ended with the word 'Tamam' only.

Lumpur200889 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version found in the car was a different version to that of Boxall's, based on discussions today. Not sure what version it is. Boxall's version can probably be deduced from the photos of it. Complexitydaemon (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxall's must have been the 1859 version as 'Jestin' had written out verse 70 ("Indeed, indeed, repentance ...) which is actually verse 94 in the later version. The two versions, whilst having a different number of verses, also differ in the translation of each verse. Whilst it may not be relevant I found an old book today on the Rubaiyat (c. 1905) which discusses other translations of the Rubaiyat other than Fitzgerald's. Namely one by Awadhi.

Lumpur200889 (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling work you're doing, Lumpur--could it be the third copy mentioned (found the night of the death) was yet another edition? Adelaide had few books before bookstores such as Marty Martins and two copies of The Rubiyat is remarkable. The greatest salient fact from the current investigations is that the former nurse's name may not have been recorded--but is known. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination

As the main contributor to this article I fear its Good Article Nomination is somewhat premature, particularly with intriguing new information being turned up as above. There is also an Adelaqide University team led by Professor Derek Abbott currently investigating the case which may come up with further information in the near future. Additionally, I am currently on overseas holiday with infrequent access to the internet and no access to my notes on the case, which would make responding to any issues raised by the GA reviewer difficult. --Roisterer (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Taman Shud Case/GA1

Inconsistency on White Citation

This article reports that Harry Dexter White's cause of death was listed as an overdose of digitalis. But the Wikipedia page for White, to which this article links, says White merely died of a typical heart attack, a claim supported by the contemporary news articles it cites. 76.23.157.102 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]