Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:08, 9 November 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wales Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggested edit

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change “one of those who had suffered abuse" to "one of those who claimed to have suffered abuse”Bruffik (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concerns, but we go by what sources say, and the source specifically refers to "One of the men who was sexually abused ...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just undone edits by Bruffik here where he changed to wording. I have restored the wording supported by the reference. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Cabinet minister

Might be worth stressing Tom Watson's allegation about a former cabinet minister is a further separate allegation following his PMQ.

Regarding Peter Morrison, the news item was merely that it is alleged he was seen several times at the home while Tom Watson's blog page on his PMQ makes it clear that Peter Morrison is not the senior Tory politican named in connection with the Welsh home scandal, as indeed all familiar with the case will know.

I would make the relevant edits myself but have to exercise a certain degree of discretion in using my account given that in practice Misplaced Pages offers no real guarantee of privacy to its account holders, whatever it might claim to the contrary.

It would be helpful if the Misplaced Pages adminstrators could remove the edit protection they have given this page. There seems to be no justification for it. I do wish Misplaced Pages administrators would stop taking themselves quite so seriously. I can add, as I have noted elsewhere, that administrators should not be naming any of the alleged abusers in this affair even on Talk pages. Of course qualified privilege doesn't extend to Misplaced Pages, which is essentially a social media site of the same nature as Facebook and Twitter. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What we are doing is reporting and summarising what reliable sources are saying, and giving them due weight and balance. We do not report or summarise blogs, or reports in the tabloid press, and obviously we do not publish unsubstantiated claims about living people. Without page protection, there is a strong possibility that those policies would not be fully maintained, and Misplaced Pages's legal position may come under threat. The fact is that Morrison has been publicly named (no doubt because he's dead), and others have not been. If you have a reliably sourced statement that you think should be included, bring it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ghmyrtle. I've looked through your edits here and admire them. Regarding qualified privilige this is what I posted elsewhere. 'Reliable sources' has nothing to do with the issue as far as the question of libel is concerned.

Regarding Morrison, it's as I say. In fact Channel 4 news didn't name him as the person named in the Bryn Estyn affair as the edit claims, only that it is alleged he was seen at the home. The person named and referred to in Tom Watson's PMQ is someone else.

Last here from me. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that The Guardian has named the family concerned, I think a brief mention and link to that article would be appropriate here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: In the light of this BBC report I've now added a sentence re the false allegations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

IP is correct to say above that the Channel 4 news item was incorrectly refernced and I have adited accordingly.

Regarding her strictures about defamation, I would say she is broadly correct but that in practice it would depend on how the Misplaced Pages Foundation respond to complainants. In the UK a proposed Bill seeks to reform the law Defamation Bill 2012-13

The aim of the Bill is to reform the law of defamation to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. The Bill makes a number of substantive changes to the law of defamation, but is not designed to codify the law into a single statute.

Key areas

• includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation
• removes the current presumption in favour of a jury trial
• introduces a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public interest"
• provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned
• introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification and fair comment.

and see this for a review.

I take it that item 4 above implies that administrators merely revdeleting defamatory content is not a sufficient procedure of itself i.e. to say a complainant might insist the account in question be banned and/or identified and might in addition complain that administrators defamed them as well in the circumstances raised by IP. Her suggestion that these are issues best left to the Misplaced Pages Foundation and not to administrators, who are merely a slightly more exalted class of editors, seems to me quite correct.

In general I would countenance that if anyone here is intent on using Misplaced Pages to defame someone you would be better off defaming someone cheap :), which is not necessarily the case here, and I certainly wouldn't rely on anonymity (no seriously). I also wouldn't rely on the Misplaced Pages servers being based in the US if I was editing from the UK or domiciled there or a citizen of the UK.

HTH. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class Wales articles
• Mid-importance Wales articles
• WikiProject Wales articles
• Stub-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Stub-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Stub-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Stub-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles