User talk:TomPrescott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--WikiSlasher 10:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"It is one of the main benefits of Wikipedia that people can openly and freely make things public as long as they are verifiably true, and it is greatly offensive to the victims of these crimes that you should choose to aide and abet them by helping to keep this information out of the public domain. a little respect is called for here. As I say, if you require further evidence, or a change in tone, please say as much but do not needlessly vandalise my contribution." I agree with much of what you say but we need to be especially careful on a topic like this which concerns living people. Please bear this in mind. I suggest you bring any other suggested additions to the article talk page so we can establish a consensus for adding them. Please don't throw around the term vandalism inappropriately like that; vandalism is regarded as deliberately reducing the value of articles and I don't think the edits I made come close to that. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is simply not true, I have included sufficient references, including the full text of two national newspaper articles about the issue. Why are you determined to supress this information? As I have said, I will be happy to change the tone or provide more sources if you have some constructive critiscism such as this, otherwise please show some respect and do not simply just delete the whole thing lock stock.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPrescott (talk • contribs)
-
- I am unable to verify the text of the newspaper articles as they don't appear on the respective papers' websites. I don't think they add all that much to what we already have anyway; that the school was criticised by HMI and has now closed. I do try to show respect for inexperienced editors like yourself; but, especially as an admin, I also have to balance that with our policy regarding allegations on living people. You may examine this policy yourself at WP:LIVING, and I recommend you do before re-adding any more of the material you want to be included. Hope this makes the reasons for my actions clearer. (If you sign your contributions to talk pages with ~~~~ it makes it easier for others to see who they are replying to.) --Guinnog 19:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Why don't you read that policy I mentioned, then come back if my reasoning is still unclear to you. --Guinnog 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm sorry you feel you deserve more explanation. It wasn't obvious to me that you had read the policy. No, I am not a holocaust denier, and no I do not appreciate your attempt at rhetoric. I will be as plain as I can be now. Because Robert Mulvey, the founder of the school, is still alive, we have to be extra careful about what we include in the article about his school. Because the sources you want us to use are not verifiable, we cannot include them. Hope that is all clear now. --Guinnog 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What is your motivation for wanting to get this material onto the encyclopedia? --Guinnog 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
What is your motive for trying to prevent this material from being included?
My motive is that it is factual. Simple as that. 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)TomPrescott
- Well, the factuality needs to be verifiable. Simple as that. --Guinnog 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you using Wikipedia's definition of Verifiable or one known only to you? 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)TomPrescott
- My issue with the reference (once I had tracked it down; you could have made it easier by giving me a url) is that it is present on a paid-for site. My issue with the article is that I'm not sure, even if we could reference it properly, whether adding this info to the article is really necessary, given the legal implications I referred to already. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to air your grievances with the school, however well-founded they may be.
- My other issue, increasingly, is that I really don't like the tone you are taking with me. I understand you may be frustrated at not getting the article the way you would have liked it; please understand that I am only doing my job in keeping wikipedia free of POV-pushing scandal which could ultimately lead to danger for the project.
- Any future sarcasm from you will simply be ignored by me. Any future "rhetorical" shots along the previous lines of comparing me with a holocaust-denier may result in a block for incivility. --Guinnog 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Tom wrote: "I have included sufficient references, including the full text of two national newspaper articles about the issue." Posting the full text of a newspaper article is a copyright violation. Please do not do it again. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I was busy previously but I feel that I should have responded to this point last year, and now have time to do so.
The critiscisms here of my tone are quite valid, my original submissions were highly emotive and I appologise for that. However you repeatedly claim that the references are unverifiable. However I feel that articles in two national newspapers constitute "Verifiability". You say:
"My issue with the reference (once I had tracked it down; you could have made it easier by giving me a url) is that it is present on a paid-for site."
Wikipedia says:
""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.""
It does not say that only online sources are valid. There are other sources for these articles, you know. In fact, "...Published by a reliable source...." Tends to imply print-press rather than electronic, according to the common definition of the verb, To Publish. Are you seriously suggesting that mainstream national newspapers are not a valid source in any circumstances unless a FREE on-line source is also available? THis is NOT mentioned in The definition of Verifiability provided by Wikipedia (which you yourself claim is the basis for your decision) so I find this decision strange, to say the least. The internet has been around for 15-20 years or so in it's popular form, newspapers for around 200 years. I am sure that there are many references in other articles which do not also existing on-line. I think that the general public consider a citation of a national newspaper to be 'Verifiable', this being all that existed until the present generation.
In fact, in the Wikipedia policy about living people you have mentioned above, it states: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
Once again, I apologise for the tone of my previous article. But it is a fact that the school was being investigated by the police for allegations of abuse, this is actually more than a critiscism so surely warrants inclusion? If "The Sunday Mail" and "The Mail on Sunday" feel that it deserves two full articles then surely I have a right to ask that this information be included.
So please, someone tell me how I can get these allegations included, as I feel not to do so is falling way short of Wikipedia's goal of fair and balanced information.
Am I allowed to quote these articles?
There must be a way to include this. These are not obscure references.
Tom Prescott 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)TomPrescott
