Talk:Rupert Allason
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
[edit] Living Persons
I've removed some unsourced statements. The differences can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Allason&diff=70758786&oldid=68497256
JASpencer 13:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've dug up references for some of them from the BBC. — Matt Crypto 14:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"Conniving little shit" redirects here. That needs to be fixed.
- ROFL, but deleted. — Matt Crypto 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed quotation of judge's remark in interest of NPOV. Allason was evidently regarded as an honest witness by judges in his numerous other cases.Balliol 22:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's perfectly NPOV -- the judge did make that remark, and the remark was emphasised in media coverage of the trial. — Matt Crypto 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- In that case to give a balanced picture one would have to quote all the favourable remarks of judges in the 20 cases he is reported to have won rather than single out a comment that creates a negative impression unfair to a living person. I propose a middle way whereby the comment is unquoted but the reference retained. Balliol 11:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Were those favourable remarks quoted in the press? If so, then include them. NPOV doesn't mean we have to generate an artificial balance -- listing a "good" thing for every "bad" thing we say. This was quoted in the media, and the judge's comment are very remarkable. He also said that Allason was "one of the most dishonest witnesses I have ever seen", "I have come to the clearest possible conclusion that Mr Allason has told me untruth after untruth in pursuit of this claim"(Telegraph),(Independent)(Guardian). This very much belongs in an encyclopedia. — Matt Crypto 11:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- In that case to give a balanced picture one would have to quote all the favourable remarks of judges in the 20 cases he is reported to have won rather than single out a comment that creates a negative impression unfair to a living person. I propose a middle way whereby the comment is unquoted but the reference retained. Balliol 11:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I am sure that there are plenty of court reportsthat could be dug out containing favourable comments on him - you don't win 20 cases if you are a liar - though it is doubtful they would make very interesting reading in an encyclopaedia entry. The issue here is whether we are achieving a fair and balanced article about a living person. Allason/West has been the subject of acres of press coverage, as a politician, spy writer and litigant. To quote only the most contentious is to paint a biased picture. I regret that the suggested compromise solution has been rejected. Balliol 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The judge's remarks in this particular case were widely reported in the mainstream media -- not least because they were such strong and unusual statements. It is quite appropriate, therefore, to include the quote in this article. To try and hide such details would create a biased article in favour of Mr Allason. — Matt Crypto 10:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am sure that there are plenty of court reportsthat could be dug out containing favourable comments on him - you don't win 20 cases if you are a liar - though it is doubtful they would make very interesting reading in an encyclopaedia entry. The issue here is whether we are achieving a fair and balanced article about a living person. Allason/West has been the subject of acres of press coverage, as a politician, spy writer and litigant. To quote only the most contentious is to paint a biased picture. I regret that the suggested compromise solution has been rejected. Balliol 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The objective is to have a fair article, not one biased in favour of the subject - nor against. It is notable that Matt Crypto has made half a dozen changes in the past twenty four hours, again all of them negative to Allason. It is particularly important in the case of a politician that entries should be seen to be even-handed and not subject to bias which diminishes the authority of Wikipedia. --Balliol 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- With respect, please mind where you're slinging accusations of bias: most of my changes have been to revert you removing valuable information from an article. Please stop; take this up somewhere else, like WP:RFC, if you really want to take this further. Moreover, it is even more notable that all of your changes to this article have been to present Allason in a much better light by, for example, removing widely reported -- but inconvenient for Allason -- facts, or adding sympathetic explanations for the lawsuits. I'm quite aware of the need to write balanced articles, and it looks like you should examine your own bias here before accusing others. — Matt Crypto 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting reaction to a factual observation. Your edits speak for themselves. - Balliol 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way, do you have any relationship with Rupert Allason or his father? — Matt Crypto 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting reaction to a factual observation. Your edits speak for themselves. - Balliol 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- With respect, please mind where you're slinging accusations of bias: most of my changes have been to revert you removing valuable information from an article. Please stop; take this up somewhere else, like WP:RFC, if you really want to take this further. Moreover, it is even more notable that all of your changes to this article have been to present Allason in a much better light by, for example, removing widely reported -- but inconvenient for Allason -- facts, or adding sympathetic explanations for the lawsuits. I'm quite aware of the need to write balanced articles, and it looks like you should examine your own bias here before accusing others. — Matt Crypto 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- The objective is to have a fair article, not one biased in favour of the subject - nor against. It is notable that Matt Crypto has made half a dozen changes in the past twenty four hours, again all of them negative to Allason. It is particularly important in the case of a politician that entries should be seen to be even-handed and not subject to bias which diminishes the authority of Wikipedia. --Balliol 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] If One Can Be Allowed To Weigh In . . .
I have been following this discussion over the last few days. I was directed to this entry through a colleague who has done some work with Wikipedia and asked for my thoughts.
There are two things that stand out in the piece as written, and those two things don't belong: the comments about the man and his character. They don't belong because they don't reflect the objective of the encyclopedia: neutral, unbiased content. That the comments can be perceived as negative isn't the point. They stand out for the wrong reasons and potentially create an unfair bias.
Justice Laddie's remarks -- the rarity and vituperativeness of same made news at the time and are still extraordinary to this day -- are just the sort papers love to run with because they make good copy. Nevertheless, the presentation of Justice Laddie's opinion of Mr. Allason is just that -- an opinion. It is not a fact. Nor does Justice Laddie's opinion having been splashed in the pages of the press make it true.
To all involved here -- by definition, Wikipedia's purpose, and its benefit, is to give neutral, objective, encyclopedic coverage of a topic/subject with the core approach being neutral unbiased article writing. It is understood there will be naturally be some degree of implicit bias.
While this collaborative effort is an on-going process -- and particularly as the subject remains alive and productive -- to divert the original purpose or use same as a platform to subjectively impose a point of view on a subject, dilutes the validity of this entry, and the source itself (see excerpt 1 from Wikipedia below).
Matt Crypto has asked Balliol about his relationship with Rupert Allason. Having read his increasingly impatient tone to seemingly genuine requests for compromise and dialogue over a matter of seeming irrelevance, I would ask Matt Crypto the same question.
I would ask if what Matt Crypto is attempting by including the quoted remarks about Mr. Allason is in good faith (see excerpt 2 from Wikipedia below)? Is there any animus behind the inclusion of the quoted material?
I ask because Matt Crypto is on record as saying of himself: "Matt Crypto is a freaky stalker weirdo who rants on Wikipedia and he is so bad that he helped to inspire the term 'wikiling writers' as a reference to him and others of his ilk. He knowingly engages in personal attacks and deletions of and vandalism of any information (even links) that explain the connection between Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy and National Socialism. He spams screeds about his propaganda all over Wikipedia."
Therefore there is cause for legitimate concern as to the nature of and reason for his desire to include the quoted material.
Balliol has tried in earnest, as the above Talk dialogue attests, to reach a compromise over material the inclusion of which can only be construed to do Mr. Allason harm.
What value does inclusion of Justice Laddie's remarks add to the entry? They can, whether substantive or not, only be interpretted one way -- as can the decision to include them.
The facts of the case are not included: rather links to the media's interpretation of same. Instead we read excerpts of the justice's comments and his decision. Why is it so important to Matt Crypto? I thought the revision by Balliol made the point that Allason lost the case without Justice Laddie's character assasination. It was factual.
Certainly there are other more successful and legitimate means of promoting one's ideas on a subject, and for sharing others thoughts on an individual or subject.
As it stands, there are comments within that attempt to establish through bias, for whatever reasons, the personality and character of the individual which is not the purpose of the site. That is what the tabloids are for.
No matter how well-publicised in the local media, inclusion of a judge's comments on the subject, the judge himself rather a controversial figure, are out of place, as no counterpoint or balance to the rest of the subject's legal career is offered.
Anyone with interest in the subject will investigate further and make his/her own conclusions.
To all comers, I have never met Rupert Allason, Balliol, or Matt Crypto.
References:
1. Wikipedia is not a battleground
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.
Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly toward you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.
When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.
Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[2] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.
2. Vandalism
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
˜˜˜˜Wrenciller, 10:36, 1 December 2006 (PST)
- I do not appreciate your insinuations about my motives. Wrenciller, if you can give any credible evidence that I've gone on the record to say of myself "Matt Crypto is a freaky stalker weirdo who rants on Wikipedia...", or else apologise for your mistake, then I might consider discussing this article with you. If you wish instead to smear my character by quoting from a banned net kook, then I have no interest in spending my free time talking with you. — Matt Crypto 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I just now Googled "Matt Crypto"+"freaky stalker" and got 187 hits. But that's beside the point. Perhaps those represent 187 opinions of what they think Matt Crypto said of himself. The quote I used was attributable to him.
-
- Before I wrote my initial comments above, because I sought to determine what the issues could be behind what seems a straight forward matter, I did a refined search on "Balliol" and "Matt Crypto." From the former I found measured debate and courtesy. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same from the search on "Matt Crypto." I invite all comers to do so for themselves. I used a level playing field for both parties in this debate: the worldwide web.
-
- Having used what was available on the internet, whether Matt Crypto said what he said about himself or not, underscores the very points I make in my initial comments above. If Wikipedia wishes to be treated as a viable, serious reference tool, it needs to reosrt to the facts -- not opinions, not hearsay. It is not a vehicle to be used for score settling.
-
- Which returns this discussion back to the point at hand: is Matt Crypto acting in good faith by attempting to insist that quotes -- which can only be construed as negative and harmful; and can only be considered as opinion and not fact -- about Mr. Allason should be included in an encyclopedia, especially as his wish to include them appear (by the very nature and tone of his argument) to run counter to the spirit and intent of Wikipedia.
-
- And the larger questions remain unanswered. Why does Matt Crypto feel so strongly about the inclusion of the "quotes"? What is the nature and reason behind the wish to include such quotes? What is his relationship to Mr. Allason? Is he acting in good faith?
-
- Nothing is insinuated, Matt Crypto. I raised viable questions based upon an unbiased reading of the tone of a debate. Prior to making comment, I researched both parties involved. The information is available to any who wish to do so for themselves on the internet.
-
- ˜˜˜˜Wrenciller, 9:30, 2 December 2006 (PST)
- Righty. I have no interest in your comments. — Matt Crypto 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- ˜˜˜˜Wrenciller, 9:30, 2 December 2006 (PST)
