Talk:Richard Marven

Possible problems with early US whistleblower coverage

These comments apply more or less equally to both the Richard Marven and Samuel Shaw (Naval Officer) articles and some probably apply to Qui tam, Esek Hopkins and/or Whistleblower. In addition to the various article sources, the Marine Committee Examination of John Grannis is also relevant.

1. As it stands, the Shaw and Marven articles have a huge overlap and I dont see how that will ever change. It might be better to merge them into an article on "History of US whistleblower law" or a similar section in the whistleblower article. The names would then redirect to that article or section.
2. These articles seem to overstate the significance of Shaw and Marven in the overall incident. Grannis seems important enough to deserve a mention by name and I think it is also important to make clear that in the complaint and the initial lawsuit, Shaw and Marven were just members of a larger group.
3. Has there been fact creep from "these two were in Rhode Island (at the time of the lawsuit)" to "these two were from Rhode Island"?
4. Has there been fact creep from "Resolved" (in JCC) through "without recorded opposition" (NYT artcle) to "unanimous"?
5. Is it accurate to describe a Resolve of the Continental Congress as a law?
6. Is it fair to trace "Shaw has been recognised" to an article that doesn't refer to him by name?
7. "(Hopkins) had misconducted himself" is given as a quote traced to Journals of the Continental Congress, but I can't find anything equivalent there.
8. Similarly for "torture". The closest I remember finding in any source was "mistreatment of prisoners" which isn't necessarily equivalent (and I think it was a claim rather than a finding).
9. Was the termination of Hopkins' employment as directly linked to the lawsuit as these articles claim? The given sources don't obviously support this.

TuxLibNit (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)