Jump to content

Talk:Edward Faulks, Baron Faulks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC on removing the semiprotection

[edit]

The proposed edits are relevant, sourced and notable. It is difficult to think of anything more notable than the chairman of the press regulator, (a former government minister and member of the House of Lords), intervening to shut down investigation of a newspaper editor (not a mere reporter) who published a false story about two senior members of the royal family, claiming they are liars. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>

There are two reasons: (1) One of my edits was reverted with no reason given. It would be better to explain what the reason for the revert was than to protect the page, because the overriding principle of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article at any time. (2) Another of my edits was reverted as a violation of Biography of Living Persons policy, but no explanation was given as to what part of the policy had been violated. Instead, the article was taken private permanently. This is a reflection on the good faith of the members of clergy who are trying to resolve this matter. Never in history has a church official been able to draw a 60,000 pound annual stipend while the cathedral authorities are preventing him from entering. A similar situation arose with the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, Martyn Percy. No articles were taken private and he has now left the Church. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 12:29 pm, Today (UTC−4)

<snip>

I have read this policy in its entirety, and the sentence which stands out is

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant and well documented, it belongs in the article - even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

In the case of one article, the allegation is that the head of the press standards organisation stopped an investigation of a journalist who published scurrilous allegations against a member of the royal family. Multiple sources have been provided to confirm the truth of both allegations. In the case of the other article, a court decided that the most senior Archdeacon in the Church embezzled charitable funds. The decision has been cited. It is difficult to see what source can be more reliable than a decision of a Lord Justice of Appeal. Do you agree on that? (Okra is a very tasty dish much appreciated by my west African colleagues). @Deepfriedokra: 92.31.138.0 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed this morning that Kusma had issued an "only warning" to the prior editor of the two articles. My block and the semi-protection were both out of process because at least one warning should have been given to me. Kusma's log shows that he created this user talk page only after he had blocked me. Having blocked me he became WP:INVOLVED and should not have protected. He was promoted 17 years ago with 86 support votes and answered two questions. Had the correct procedure been followed the matter could have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. Now nobody can edit them, which contravenes the five pillars. Another reason for removing the protection is that I explained above why my edits did not breach WP:BLP and my argument has been accepted. Pinging Kusma in case he is unaware of the discussion. If there is no unprotection or comment here I will take the matter to your talk page tomorrow so that other editors can weigh in.

The matter has become somewhat pressing as there have been significant developments in the past few hours. Dr Adam has now been entered on the website as Archdeacon of Canterbury. This is only a cosmetic change - although the other two Archdeacons are pictured there is no picture of him. More importantly, the Archdeacon must be registered as Trustee of the Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance because he is ex officio Trustee by virtue of his office. The authorities have no intention of registering him because he's not Archdeacon. They also have no intention of appointing him a Director (along with the other Archdeacons) because they do not consider him to be a fit and proper person to hold a company directorship. @Kusma: to alert him to this discussion. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You (at both this and a different IP address, I see no reason to accept your claim that two different people would make these near identical edits) have not presented any published reliable sources for any of your allegations. You have also not explained why your edits did not breach WP:BLP, and @Deepfriedokra has not accepted your argument. I don't either. I am not WP:INVOLVED in this dispute, having no interest in the articles whatsoever; both the block and the protection are routine admin actions to prevent further violations of the BLP policy, which forbids unsourced or poorly sourced negative claims about living people in the encyclopaedia. Contrary to what you have said above, the talk pages of the articles in question can still be edited to discuss the matter; you will be free to present your reliable sources (if you have any) there once your block has expired. —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:PUBLISHED: "Any source which was made available to the public in some form." Court judgments are available to the public and the President of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal (a Lady Justice of Appeal and one of the most senior Judges in that Court) has ruled that Dr Adam embezzled charitable funds. Again, Decisions of the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards are public documents. Given that, there was no violation of WP:BLP. If you want to continue to argue otherwise, you are free to do so, otherwise the protections should be rescinded. @Kusma: 92.31.138.0 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The decision in question (if it exists) has not been published yet: [1] only goes until July 2022. As you wish to include the information, it is your job to show the sources, and they have to conform to WP:BLPPRIMARY. —Kusma (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of where secondary sources were not good enough Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 July 1#Bight of Benin Protectorate. You are twisting the words of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Policy makes it crystal clear that if, for example, documents are retained in a library (as judgments of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and House of Lords Commissioners are) that satisfies the "Publication" criterion. Anyone can go to the Ibadan branch of the Nigerian National Archives and inspect the documents, for example. Again, your link refers to assertions, not facts. Obviously, if Amber Heard says in evidence that Johnny Depp bashed her and he says she bashed him that's a "he said, she said" situation. Once the Judge writes a judgment (e.g. finding that Depp bashed Amber, for example), that's the best source for the actual facts there is, and that judgment goes into the Library of the High Court. @Kusma: 92.31.138.0 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Writing in the Evening Standard on 20 May under the headline So how come No 10 escaped 14,000 pounds fine? Tristan Kirk reports that the courts 'began to share information, I dug into the legal papers and police evidence of Covid breaches, uncovering a lack of consistency, mystifying decision-making, and obvious signs of miscarriages of justice.

'A 21-year old Kingston man with a 10,000 pounds party fine was convicted after he had been written to by the police to say "case closed". A south London woman was issued with a FPN after she walked to Borough Market for some food and drink. A habitual beggar who twice refused to leave her normal spot in Tesco car park was fined 2,500 pounds.'

When a newspaper publishes facts and the report is cited in Wikipedia, no one disputes that the source is reliable. When a Wikipedia editor cites the same facts directly from the same source administrators scream "Gross violation of WP:BLP". The allegation is absurd. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To believe an allegation about a living person based on your word that it is mentioned in some unpublished document would be absurd. If what you say is true, then other sources will also publish this. If they don't, then your assertion may be true, but it should not be published in Wikipedia before it is published elsewhere. I have no idea why you are taking this to my talk page. If you find new sources, I suggest you make an edit request on the respective article talk pages. If you do not find new sources, I suggest you wait until they appear. —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misquote me. I never said I was sourcing from "some unpublished document." To quote from the headnote of the relevant policy:

All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people, according to definitions in the relevant policies and guidelines. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.

In terms of the sources I used:

February 2022 Lady Justice of Appeal writes her judgment>February 2022 Her clerk files a copy in the Library of the Supreme Court>February 2022 The Librarian indexes the judgment and files it in a binder>August 2022 a Wikipedia editor enters the library between 9.30 AM and 4.30 PM on weekdays when it is open to the public, checks the shelf number from the index, pulls the volume from the shelf and notes the terms of the judgment>August 2022 Wikipedia editor edits article citing the judgment after consulting her notes.

August 2022 House of Lords Commissioner for Standards writes his judgment>August 2022 His clerk files a copy in the Library of the House of Lords>August 2022 The Librarian indexes the judgment and files it in a binder>August 2022 The Webmaster examines the judgments filed in the binder and decides which are of sufficient public importance to be published on the website (if by September a judgment has not appeared on the website it is likely the Webmaster has decided it is not of sufficient public importance and it will never appear on the website)>August 2022 Wikipedia editor telephones the Librarian, cites the case number and arranges an appointment to view the judgment>August 2022 Wikipedia editor attends at the appointed time and is handed the judgment>August 2022 Wikipedia editor notes the terms of the judgment and hands it back to the librarian>August 2022 Wikipedia editor edits article citing the judgment after consulting her notes.

I don't understand your comment

If what you say is true, then other sources will also publish this.

This presupposes that a journalist will hang about in the Library of the Supreme Court on the offchance that a Judge's clerk will bring in a judgment which he will then ask to read. I don't believe that journalists do this, as their employers expect them to be out talking to people about stories and then writing a story and filing it with the newsdesk. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are not of sufficient public importance have no place in an encyclopaedia. —Kusma (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may have heard that Harry and Meghan are in Britain this week. A few hours ago they took the train from London to Manchester where they will be speaking at a conference tonight. What makes you think that the action of a Lord charged with ensuring the probity of journalists is not "notable" (let's stick to Wikipedia terms) especially when the investigation he shut down was into a claim that journalists falsely accused the couple of lying about the date of their marriage. Is it not notable that some journalists have an agenda of planting fake stories which are character assassination of this couple and designed to arouse hostility against them in the nation? 92.31.138.0 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you keep posting here. You have already convinced me that we should not include your proposed content at this time. —Kusma (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me why you think that sourced, notable content should not be included at this time. Please provide a detailed argument citing the relevant passages of policy and showing how those passages support the conclusion you have reached. If you don't do that then an independent third party can be asked to close the discussion, and if you have not stated your case by the time that happens I expect the close to be against you. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to propose any edits, please do so at the article talk page. You can use {{edit semiprotected}} to attract the attention of other editors. —Kusma (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is your unjustified semiprotection preventing everyone (not just me) from adding sourced, relevant and notable content to these articles. What I will be doing in the course of the next few days is copying this discussion to the relevant talk pages so that a wider section of the community can make their views known (I anticipate that a consensus to remove the semiprotection will emerge). 92.31.138.0 (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Faulks,_Baron_Faulks&oldid=1257747418"