-- 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)
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
Are you using Wikipedia's definition of Verifiable or one known only to you? 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)TomPrescott
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
-- 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)
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
Are you using Wikipedia's definition of Verifiable or one known only to you? 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)TomPrescott
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