![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Fixed Penalty Notices were introduced under the...
Under the WHAT?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fixed penalty notice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 01:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Fixed penalty notice →
Fixed Penalty Notice – Widely appears capitalised on the web and some other wikipedia articles (verifiable by search). PND and PCN appear capitalised in article body.
Bojo Skankins (
talk)
12:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.The evidence so far is that it is not even consistently capped in gov sources which are not independent and tend to overcap. A google search also shows lowercase often enough. This really isn't a proper noun but a descriptive noun phrase that is sometimews capitalised for MOS:SIGNIFCAPS but we don't do that. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
A Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) is a notification of what is usually a minor fine that unless settled will become a criminal offence
. I don't think this is accurate. A fixed penalty is an offer to buy immunity from prosecution for a particular suspected instance of an offence. Declining this offer has no effect, other than someone might decide to try to prosecute you. You aren't really even opting for a court prosecution, you are just declining the offer Talpedia ( talk) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it WP:SUSPECT compliant and WP:DUE to describe that 50 members of Whitehall staff, or even government ministers or family members, were issued with penalty notices related to Covid gatherings? Remembering that they do not constitute convictions of anything or require an admission of guilt of anything. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Poor people and ethnic minority people were targetted for FPN's, not privileged cabinet ministers. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 12:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
References
I've added a see also on partygate... just to sort of explore the consensus space a little. Obviously, if editors aren't happy with this they can revert ( WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD). Don't have time to flesh out some considerations right now. Talpedia ( talk) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Proxima Centauri: Hey, let's see what DeFacto thinks about the shorter edit. WP:CONSENSUS sort of means that if we can't find concensus through WP:BOLD editing then we roll back to the "accepted" version, stop making changes, and seek consensus through talking here (though there is potentially a little contention over which is the "accepted" version). Talpedia ( talk) 14:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@
DeFacto: I continue to be interested in your reasons for opposing this addition, which you've so far mostly kept us in the dark about. You did offer more of an explanation back in December (above), where you cited
WP:SUSPECT and
WP:DUE, but didn't respond to subsequent comments. Since then, the only explanation you've given is that there isn't a current consensus in favour of the material. This is both questionable on its own terms (I count three editors on this talk page in favour of inclusion and one against) and, as I mentioned above, is only going to convince anyone when accompanied by substantive arguments against the material. In case you're not familiar with them, see
WP:STONEWALLING and
WP:DRNC. The latter has the following useful advice: Wikipedia editors resolve a lack of consensus through an exchange of information leading to persuasion and compromise. Reverting an edit shows there is no consensus. Saying "no consensus" in the edit summary adds no new information. Worse, it forces the reverted editor to begin a talk page discussion just to find out the real reason for the revert. This hampers consensus-building by adding an unnecessary step to the process.
–
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
18:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. So examples in an article about Fixed Penalty Notices need to be those given in the reliable sources which concentrate on the topic of this article, Fixed Penalty Notices. That is, sources mainly discussing FPNs, not sources mainly discussing Covid or Partygate. If we find that the disputed section fairly represents the viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources majoring on FPNs, then I would concede that we should include it. Currently though, the disputed section is only supported by news media sources related to Covid and Partygate, and thus relies on editor WP:SYNTH drawing the conclusion that it is a good example of Fixed Penalty Notices. -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
an article discussing FPNs in general to talk about partygate, rather than an article about partgate to mention FPNs, yes. -- DeFacto ( talk). 10:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
sources mainly discussing FPNsdo devote attention to the ones received by Johnson, Sunak and others. (Whether this is a reasonable standard to apply – and what content we'd be left with in this article if it were applied beyond this case – is another matter, but perhaps moot.) Finally, I'm aware of how consensus works, which is why I said the claim no consensus exists was
questionablerather than, let's say, "plain wrong" – it's always possible that the preponderance of editors are mistaken in their understanding of policy, and sometimes a lone editor does prevail, but I don't think this is going to be one of those cases. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include a summary of the issuing of fixed penalty notices in relation to the Partygate scandal, as in this edit? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not really a policy based arguments, and perhaps these aims might be better achieved by writing about human rights in British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and linking to this. If someone was going to give a historical account of FPNs I would expected partygate to be mentioned in a single sentence, in a similar way to if someone were to give a historical account of mental health laws they might mention cases of homicide that influenced public opinion - that said we should probably find a source doing so - when the covid inquiry or bingham report get published perhaps we will have something to cite... Talpedia 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Fixed Penalty Notices were introduced under the...
Under the WHAT?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fixed penalty notice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 01:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Fixed penalty notice →
Fixed Penalty Notice – Widely appears capitalised on the web and some other wikipedia articles (verifiable by search). PND and PCN appear capitalised in article body.
Bojo Skankins (
talk)
12:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.The evidence so far is that it is not even consistently capped in gov sources which are not independent and tend to overcap. A google search also shows lowercase often enough. This really isn't a proper noun but a descriptive noun phrase that is sometimews capitalised for MOS:SIGNIFCAPS but we don't do that. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
A Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) is a notification of what is usually a minor fine that unless settled will become a criminal offence
. I don't think this is accurate. A fixed penalty is an offer to buy immunity from prosecution for a particular suspected instance of an offence. Declining this offer has no effect, other than someone might decide to try to prosecute you. You aren't really even opting for a court prosecution, you are just declining the offer Talpedia ( talk) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it WP:SUSPECT compliant and WP:DUE to describe that 50 members of Whitehall staff, or even government ministers or family members, were issued with penalty notices related to Covid gatherings? Remembering that they do not constitute convictions of anything or require an admission of guilt of anything. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Poor people and ethnic minority people were targetted for FPN's, not privileged cabinet ministers. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 12:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
References
I've added a see also on partygate... just to sort of explore the consensus space a little. Obviously, if editors aren't happy with this they can revert ( WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD). Don't have time to flesh out some considerations right now. Talpedia ( talk) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Proxima Centauri: Hey, let's see what DeFacto thinks about the shorter edit. WP:CONSENSUS sort of means that if we can't find concensus through WP:BOLD editing then we roll back to the "accepted" version, stop making changes, and seek consensus through talking here (though there is potentially a little contention over which is the "accepted" version). Talpedia ( talk) 14:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@
DeFacto: I continue to be interested in your reasons for opposing this addition, which you've so far mostly kept us in the dark about. You did offer more of an explanation back in December (above), where you cited
WP:SUSPECT and
WP:DUE, but didn't respond to subsequent comments. Since then, the only explanation you've given is that there isn't a current consensus in favour of the material. This is both questionable on its own terms (I count three editors on this talk page in favour of inclusion and one against) and, as I mentioned above, is only going to convince anyone when accompanied by substantive arguments against the material. In case you're not familiar with them, see
WP:STONEWALLING and
WP:DRNC. The latter has the following useful advice: Wikipedia editors resolve a lack of consensus through an exchange of information leading to persuasion and compromise. Reverting an edit shows there is no consensus. Saying "no consensus" in the edit summary adds no new information. Worse, it forces the reverted editor to begin a talk page discussion just to find out the real reason for the revert. This hampers consensus-building by adding an unnecessary step to the process.
–
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
18:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. So examples in an article about Fixed Penalty Notices need to be those given in the reliable sources which concentrate on the topic of this article, Fixed Penalty Notices. That is, sources mainly discussing FPNs, not sources mainly discussing Covid or Partygate. If we find that the disputed section fairly represents the viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources majoring on FPNs, then I would concede that we should include it. Currently though, the disputed section is only supported by news media sources related to Covid and Partygate, and thus relies on editor WP:SYNTH drawing the conclusion that it is a good example of Fixed Penalty Notices. -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
an article discussing FPNs in general to talk about partygate, rather than an article about partgate to mention FPNs, yes. -- DeFacto ( talk). 10:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
sources mainly discussing FPNsdo devote attention to the ones received by Johnson, Sunak and others. (Whether this is a reasonable standard to apply – and what content we'd be left with in this article if it were applied beyond this case – is another matter, but perhaps moot.) Finally, I'm aware of how consensus works, which is why I said the claim no consensus exists was
questionablerather than, let's say, "plain wrong" – it's always possible that the preponderance of editors are mistaken in their understanding of policy, and sometimes a lone editor does prevail, but I don't think this is going to be one of those cases. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include a summary of the issuing of fixed penalty notices in relation to the Partygate scandal, as in this edit? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not really a policy based arguments, and perhaps these aims might be better achieved by writing about human rights in British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and linking to this. If someone was going to give a historical account of FPNs I would expected partygate to be mentioned in a single sentence, in a similar way to if someone were to give a historical account of mental health laws they might mention cases of homicide that influenced public opinion - that said we should probably find a source doing so - when the covid inquiry or bingham report get published perhaps we will have something to cite... Talpedia 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)