Talk:Iwerne camps

Copyright violations

I'm seeing a lot of copy-and-paste content here -- not the entire page from one source, but sentences taken piecemeal from elsewhere (and not just the direct quotes appropriately marked as such). There's copying from here and here, for instance.— Moriwen (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Moriwen: Nearly all the content in the article at the moment is from either E. J. H. Nash or Titus Trust - I've noted in edit comments where it came from. This significant subject was covered incompletely across a couple of articles about people and organisations connected to the camps; this is an attempt to bring the content about the camps themselves into one article.

On the first one, you may be correct - the Smyth content came from Titus Trust, where it mostly seems to have been added about five years ago, and looks like it may have been written with insufficent care for sources. It's probably too long in any case.

The second is a false positive, though - if you look, it cites Wikipedia as a source. The text looks familiar because it comes from our own E. J. H. Nash article, and has been reused here in cut-down form with appropriate acknowledgement in the edit comments. TSP (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, that's my bad! Thanks for catching that.— Moriwen (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've done an edit to try and clean up any derivative text from the Christian Today article. I think most of the issue, though, is that both the source and our article fairly closely follow the victims' statement - I've cut that down a bit, it's a bit less notable now time has passed and there have been further developments. TSP (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Who wants to expand the article to explain the nickname "Bash"?

This article and Nash's own article state he was called "Bash" without offering any reason or explanation. I've got a pretty clear idea of the reason, going by what I've read including phrases like "Nash embraced penal servitude", his demanding to be called "Commandant" and his habit of writing to boys in his pastoral care about their need for discipline to address their waywardness. It strikes me as doubtful that the abuse conducted by John Smyth in the 1970s and 1980s was the first to occur in these "camps". Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Iwerne and Forres Holidays logo (I&F Holidays)

I don't really understand why this logo is in the article. The image has a caption with a now-defunct website (irwerne.org) - so I guess the company/charity is now defunct like the website. The inclusion of the logo puzzled me, so I tried the website (defunct) and googled the name (to no avail). I understand that this 'brand' is probably an evolution of the original Iwerne Camps organisation - probably the latest/last iteration of the brand.

It's difficult to put into words my issue with it, but I'll try. First and foremost is the fact it's a defunct brand that seems to have no presence online or in google searches - so I couldn't find any material to add context to my own understanding.

Then there is the 'corporate' image aspect that the logo imbues. To me, a corporate logo lends a degree of respectability and trust - now, in point of fact that's an important part of the Iwerne Camps story, because the abuse was allowed to fly-under-the-radar for decades exactly because Iwerne falsely traded on respectability and trust. However, the logo is obviously relatively contemporary, and I feel certain that in the early decades of Iwerne there was no 'corporate image' or logo. Therefore I would guess the inclusion of this logo is something of an anachronism.

The inclusion of the contemporary logo could also create a false impression with some readers that the abuse was recent and perhaps 'short-lived', when in fact it began decades ago and spanned decades. Certainly the article is unambiguous about when the abuse occurred and its longevity, however I personally feel it is important to realise that some people will only glance at the article and take-away their own impression based on a cursory reading. It's reasonable to argue that the words are there and if people don't read them, that's their failing - but I think it's important to accept that some people form impressions based on a glance and we should try to cater for people of all abilities.

Finally, the corporate logo I think gives a sense of 'corporate blame', and in turn corporate blame tends to detract from personal blame (it can act as, or be used as, a smoke screen to absolve guilty individuals in favour of a shared, faceless culpability.) Now, there is certainly some corporate or organisational blame attached to the Iwerne scandal. But, as the article makes clear, the abuse was perpetrated by a very small number of specific individuals. Also, while this article is ostensibly about the Iwerne Camps, the principal thrust of it is the abuse. It's likely that the article only exists because of the abuse. While the organisation (or corporation if you like) must take some blame, most blame is attributed to a handful of people (as is clear from the article). Therefore I don't like the possibility that the logo steers the article towards a corporation instead of towards the individuals responsible.

Finally - and in fact this might well be sufficient reason in itself to remove the logo - when you do try to google 'Iwerne and Forres Holidays', although it doesn't (as far as I can see) produce useful results, it does give (as you would expect) many near matches. And of course in the absence of any 'real' results, these near-match results are at the top of the google search. I think most people regard the top google results as 'reliable' or 'accurate' or 'trustworthy' - so there is a danger that extant holiday companies with similar names (or containing similar words) get associated with the defunct and very toxic Iwerne and Forres brand. One could argue that this is not Wikipedia's fault or concern. However, given the extreme toxicity of the Iwerne and Forres brand, I personally believe there is an important moral duty to take steps to ensure that separate but similar sounding brands are not inadvertently linked to it.

Anyone who has read thus far deserves a medal. And you're no doubt (at least I hope so) thinking either, "that's a compelling case, I'm going to remove that logo" or "jebus that was an exhausting read, I'm going to remove it just to shut this person up!". Either way, thank you.

One final thing - does the picture of Clayesmore School add anything? The Iwerne Camps were more of a concept and were held in many different locations (although it seems most were certainly held at Clayesmore). As previously written, this article is titled 'Iwerne Camps' but it's really a proxy for the abuse. The abuse wasn't geographic, the consequences then and now are carried around in the bodies and minds of survivors of the abuse, and survivors (and perpetrators) were/are now scattered all around the globe. It's an obvious point, not intended to be facetious, but the building is not to blame. Nor is the building at all important to the story.

In conclusion, I suggest that neither the contemporary (and defunct) corporate logo nor the image of the school building add anything to the importance or context of this article on child abuse.

There is a tendency for articles (whether online news or Wikipedia) to include images for the sake of including images. For example, a recent story on BBC News online about the Post Office scandal, which featured a library image of a red British post box. Absolutely irrelevant to the scandal, but it's de rigueur that all BBC News online articles have to have a picture of something. Wikipedia doesn't need to fall into that trap. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the answer to most of your questions is that the article is about the camps, not just the abuse. The camps are important context for the abuse, but also for understanding a lot about the people who went to them and the wider culture they engendered.

I think the brand under which the camps was run is relevant, as is the location at which they ran and which they took their name from. Certainly there was an Iwerne culture and an Iwerne concept, but it was centred around literally Iwerne - the camps that took place three times a year in Iwerne Minster, Dorset, from the 1940s to 2000, when they moved to Norfolk. The logo doesn't add much, but no logo ever really does. The picture of the school, I think, is useful for illustrating the sort of environment in which the events took place. TSP (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)