Talk:Makin Review

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Makin Review is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Work needed

I've created this article as I believe the Makin Review is sufficiently notable to have its own article. The review received considerable media coverage and led to the resignation of Justin Welby. More work is needed, particularly an accurate summary of the report's conclusions, with appropriate citations. Over to the community! SmilingFace (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is whether this is the most sensible division of the articles. There was previously the Ruston Report (1982), the Coltart Report (1997), the Channel 4 documentary (2017), Andrew Graystone's book (2021), the Scripture Union Report (2021), the Titus Trust culture review and answers to questions (2021), and the Winchester College review (2022). I'm wondering whether having an article specifically on one of those reviews is the appropriate context, versus having all this information in the John Smyth article, or perhaps in an article about the investigations and reports into Smyth's abuse? It feels like these other issues get treated rather briefly in this article, which may perhaps lack context (for example, Andrew Graystone pops up in a later section as making a response to the report, but without any previous context on his role). On the other hand the Smyth article could get very long given the sheer number of enquiries. TSP (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/john-smyth-review. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]