Talk:Bruce Hyman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.


Contents

[edit] Unsourced claims

Removed unsourced claims. He appears nowhere on the Doughty Street Chambers website--check out the "Our People" page. The Above the Title 'About Us' page makes no mention of him,so cannot be cited. Mambazi 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is another Above the Title 'About Us' page. If no more he once was. Paul Beardsell 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] To the anon who removed the Wikiproject banner

Please leave it--it's not specific to Hyman because of the court case. It has lots of information on the state of the article eg that its a stub class article and the 'Biography of living persons' warning is standard and has to be adhered to, end of court case or not. 81.152.168.21 15:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get it right, OK?

I have removed the following:

"...by faking a judgement, anonymously sending it to a father seeking contact with his child, and then attempting to have the father prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice when he subsequently presented this "fake" judgement in court"

Why? Because it is not accurate. He did not send the doc anonymously, he sent it in someone else's name. There is nothing to say he attempted to bring a prosecution. That the man involved would be prosecuted would have been foreseen by him, but the judge didn't need prompting, and was not so prompted.

Just get it right, OK? Paul Beardsell 10:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The document was fraudulently sent in another's name, thereby providing anonymity for the true author. I would agree that when an author uses a different name to publish then that is not the same as publishing anonymously, but when there is fraud involved, the fact that the motive was to mislead and, obviously, to remain anonymous, then it is not misleading or innaccutare to report summarily that the message was sent anonymously. 84.9.48.125 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's English. Anonymously means "without a name". Find another word for what you mean. There is one. Paul Beardsell 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit reasoning

This link was to an outdated version of the wikinews page. If the reason for including the link was "text of the case", then it should be added to the latest version of the wikinews page. 86.136.27.106 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The parsimonious people in wikinews took it out. It's the evidence in the case, received from a someone close to the case. There should be a link to it from the main article, as it's in the public interest. Could put it in wikileaks, but it's here (above) for the time being. I suppose one could argue that the more places it appears the better!. 84.9.49.13 23:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Stannard still involved in polemics?

This diff [1] shows that Matthew Stannard also edits as 84.9.49.13; is it too much to think that this diff [2] might indicate that Matthew Stannard also edits as 84.9.48.66? Interesting, when he said he wouldn't edit on this page any more. And by the way, what he reverted in his anon IP incarnations wasn't vandalism, it was very clearly explained violations of WP:WLB, use of non-sourced material etc etc etc. 86.133.243.6 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter who says what. It's what is said that is important. Anonymous editing is specifically allowed. Having said that: Unsourced unverifiable material will not be allowed and you will see I've removed it, again. Paul Beardsell 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
All material reported in tabloid newspapers in OK, because paid journalists are invariably disinterested and provide infallible independently verified stories. When there are discrepancies between sources, all those sources should be considered unreliable and any reference to them or discussion about them removed without question. This is an invariable rule of wikipedia. Break it at your peril! Publicly available documents providing valid references and notification of their source, which can be checked, are also disallowed unless they have been published verbatim in tabloid newspapers or other sources for which people get paid for their contributions. It is always the case that unverified material is going to be a forgery and hence people should not allowed to read it in order to make up their own minds about whether it might true. It can't be, by definition and, in any event, truth is the least important consideration when editing here. References to old versions of articles or discussion pages are also not allowed and must be removed if they appear. Therefore, for example, you are not allowed to reference the statement possibly made by a particular contributor or by someone else regarding whether he or she did or didn't say that he would not contribute to this discussion page. You can hunt for it in the history of this page (though this would be an unwise use of your time) but you mustn't indicate where it is because this would be against wikipedia policy, wikipedia rules, wikipedia etiquette and common sense. Readers here just don't want to know things and editors don't want people to read things. It is editors' prerogative partially or entirely to block access to information whenever they feel they are right, and eithout question. The most effective editors always remember that the delete key is the most powerful key, and using it to remove other people's contributions gives invariably them more elation than any use of any other feature of this system. This is as things should be. 147.114.226.175 09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Brevity is the soul of polemics? You claim, paraphrasing, that your behaviour is justified because others delight in telling you off. Paul Beardsell 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion

There is some more discussion with a practising family law barrister about Hyman at http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/bruce-hyman/#comment-137 Matt Stan 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)