639:. Policy makes it crystal clear that if, for example, documents are retained in a library (as judgments of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and House of Lords Commissioners are) that satisfies the "Publication" criterion. Anyone can go to the Ibadan branch of the Nigerian National Archives and inspect the documents, for example. Again, your link refers to assertions, not facts. Obviously, if Amber Heard says in evidence that Johnny Depp bashed her and he says she bashed him that's a "he said, she said" situation. Once the Judge writes a judgment (e.g. finding that Depp bashed Amber, for example), that's the best source for the actual facts there is, and that judgment goes into the Library of the High Court. @Kusma:
227:
209:
480:
as a violation of
Biography of Living Persons policy, but no explanation was given as to what part of the policy had been violated. Instead, the article was taken private permanently. This is a reflection on the good faith of the members of clergy who are trying to resolve this matter. Never in history has a church official been able to draw a 60,000 pound annual stipend while the cathedral authorities are preventing him from entering. A similar situation arose with the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, Martyn Percy. No articles were taken private and he has now left the Church.
181:
312:
291:
322:
580:: "Any source which was made available to the public in some form." Court judgments are available to the public and the President of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal (a Lady Justice of Appeal and one of the most senior Judges in that Court) has ruled that Dr Adam embezzled charitable funds. Again, Decisions of the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards are public documents. Given that, there was no violation of
119:
95:
64:
503:
case of the other article, a court decided that the most senior
Archdeacon in the Church embezzled charitable funds. The decision has been cited. It is difficult to see what source can be more reliable than a decision of a Lord Justice of Appeal. Do you agree on that? (Okra is a very tasty dish much appreciated by my west African colleagues). @Deepfriedokra:
396:
686:'A 21-year old Kingston man with a 10,000 pounds party fine was convicted after he had been written to by the police to say "case closed". A south London woman was issued with a FPN after she walked to Borough Market for some food and drink. A habitual beggar who twice refused to leave her normal spot in Tesco car park was fined 2,500 pounds.'
129:
750:
August 2022 The
Webmaster examines the judgments filed in the binder and decides which are of sufficient public importance to be published on the website (if by September a judgment has not appeared on the website it is likely the Webmaster has decided it is not of sufficient public importance and it
517:
I was informed this morning that Kusma had issued an "only warning" to the prior editor of the two articles. My block and the semi-protection were both out of process because at least one warning should have been given to me. Kusma's log shows that he created this user talk page only after he had
872:
The issue is your unjustified semiprotection preventing everyone (not just me) from adding sourced, relevant and notable content to these articles. What I will be doing in the course of the next few days is copying this discussion to the relevant talk pages so that a wider section of the community
731:
All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people, according to definitions in the relevant policies and guidelines. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked
522:
and should not have protected. He was promoted 17 years ago with 86 support votes and answered two questions. Had the correct procedure been followed the matter could have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. Now nobody can edit them, which contravenes the five pillars. Another reason
502:
In the case of one article, the allegation is that the head of the press standards organisation stopped an investigation of a journalist who published scurrilous allegations against a member of the royal family. Multiple sources have been provided to confirm the truth of both allegations. In the
479:
There are two reasons: (1) One of my edits was reverted with no reason given. It would be better to explain what the reason for the revert was than to protect the page, because the overriding principle of
Knowledge is that anyone can edit any article at any time. (2) Another of my edits was reverted
705:
To believe an allegation about a living person based on your word that it is mentioned in some unpublished document would be absurd. If what you say is true, then other sources will also publish this. If they don't, then your assertion may be true, but it should not be published in
Knowledge before
531:
The matter has become somewhat pressing as there have been significant developments in the past few hours. Dr Adam has now been entered on the website as
Archdeacon of Canterbury. This is only a cosmetic change - although the other two Archdeacons are pictured there is no picture of him. More
461:
The proposed edits are relevant, sourced and notable. It is difficult to think of anything more notable than the chairman of the press regulator, (a former government minister and member of the House of Lords), intervening to shut down investigation of a newspaper editor (not a mere reporter) who
833:
Please explain to me why you think that sourced, notable content should not be included at this time. Please provide a detailed argument citing the relevant passages of policy and showing how those passages support the conclusion you have reached. If you don't do that then an independent third
800:
You may have heard that Harry and Meghan are in
Britain this week. A few hours ago they took the train from London to Manchester where they will be speaking at a conference tonight. What makes you think that the action of a Lord charged with ensuring the probity of journalists is not "notable"
766:
This presupposes that a journalist will hang about in the
Library of the Supreme Court on the offchance that a Judge's clerk will bring in a judgment which he will then ask to read. I don't believe that journalists do this, as their employers expect them to be out talking to people about stories
557:
in this dispute, having no interest in the articles whatsoever; both the block and the protection are routine admin actions to prevent further violations of the BLP policy, which forbids unsourced or poorly sourced negative claims about living people in the encyclopaedia. Contrary to what you have
552:
You (at both this and a different IP address, I see no reason to accept your claim that two different people would make these near identical edits) have not presented any published reliable sources for any of your allegations. You have also not explained why your edits did not breach WP:BLP, and
536:
Trustee by virtue of his office. The authorities have no intention of registering him because he's not
Archdeacon. They also have no intention of appointing him a Director (along with the other Archdeacons) because they do not consider him to be a fit and proper person to hold a company
689:
When a newspaper publishes facts and the report is cited in
Knowledge, no one disputes that the source is reliable. When a Knowledge editor cites the same facts directly from the same source administrators scream "Gross violation of WP:BLP". The allegation is absurd.
706:
it is published elsewhere. I have no idea why you are taking this to my talk page. If you find new sources, I suggest you make an edit request on the respective article talk pages. If you do not find new sources, I suggest you wait until they appear. —
431:
675:
Tristan Kirk reports that the courts 'began to share information, I dug into the legal papers and police evidence of Covid breaches, uncovering a lack of consistency, mystifying decision-making, and obvious signs of miscarriages of
742:
August 2022 a Knowledge editor enters the library between 9.30 AM and 4.30 PM on weekdays when it is open to the public, checks the shelf number from the index, pulls the volume from the shelf and notes the terms of the judgment:
599:
527:
and my argument has been accepted. Pinging Kusma in case he is unaware of the discussion. If there is no unprotection or comment here I will take the matter to your talk page tomorrow so that other editors can weigh in.
1013:
993:
267:
558:
said above, the talk pages of the articles in question can still be edited to discuss the matter; you will be free to present your reliable sources (if you have any) there once your block has expired. —
273:
988:
805:. Is it not notable that some journalists have an agenda of planting fake stories which are character assassination of this couple and designed to arouse hostility against them in the nation?
243:
973:
632:
234:
214:
978:
43:
968:
498:
If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant and well documented, it belongs in the article - even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
958:
190:
105:
48:
31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
983:
963:
147:
23:
834:
party can be asked to close the discussion, and if you have not stated your case by the time that happens I expect the close to be against you.
724:
Please don't misquote me. I never said I was sourcing from "some unpublished document." To quote from the headnote of the relevant policy:
819:
I don't understand why you keep posting here. You have already convinced me that we should not include your proposed content at this time. —
226:
208:
1003:
374:
364:
151:
155:
1008:
998:
903:
874:
835:
806:
768:
691:
640:
585:
538:
504:
481:
463:
601:
only goes until July 2022. As you wish to include the information, it is your job to show the sources, and they have to conform to
146:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
752:
August 2022 Knowledge editor telephones the Librarian, cites the case number and arranges an appointment to view the judgment: -->
142:
100:
584:. If you want to continue to argue otherwise, you are free to do so, otherwise the protections should be rescinded. @Kusma:
239:
926:
412:
75:
852:
532:
importantly, the Archdeacon must be registered as Trustee of the Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance because he is
408:
801:(let's stick to Knowledge terms) especially when the investigation he shut down was into a claim that journalists
335:
296:
180:
63:
339:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
32:
907:
878:
839:
810:
772:
695:
644:
589:
542:
508:
485:
467:
81:
873:
can make their views known (I anticipate that a consensus to remove the semiprotection will emerge).
636:
602:
42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
754:
August 2022 Knowledge editor notes the terms of the judgment and hands it back to the librarian: -->
577:
242:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
934:
922:
554:
519:
46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
462:
published a false story about two senior members of the royal family, claiming they are liars.
134:
755:
August 2022 Knowledge editor edits article citing the judgment after consulting her notes.
744:
August 2022 Knowledge editor edits article citing the judgment after consulting her notes.
863:
824:
787:
753:
August 2022 Knowledge editor attends at the appointed time and is handed the judgment: -->
711:
610:
563:
39:
732:
in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Knowledge.
419:
938:
911:
882:
867:
843:
828:
814:
791:
782:
Things that are not of sufficient public importance have no place in an encyclopaedia. —
776:
715:
699:
648:
614:
593:
567:
546:
512:
471:
848:
If you wish to propose any edits, please do so at the article talk page. You can use
952:
930:
581:
524:
447:
633:
Knowledge:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 July 1#Bight of Benin Protectorate
523:
for removing the protection is that I explained above why my edits did not breach
311:
290:
761:
730:
497:
321:
118:
94:
859:
820:
783:
747:
August 2022 House of Lords Commissioner for Standards writes his judgment: -->
741:
February 2022 The Librarian indexes the judgment and files it in a binder: -->
707:
606:
559:
494:
I have read this policy in its entirety, and the sentence which stands out is
327:
317:
124:
929:, but I'll hold off for a bit in case someone wishes to close this formally.
740:
February 2022 Her clerk files a copy in the Library of the Supreme Court: -->
749:
August 2022 The Librarian indexes the judgment and files it in a binder: -->
748:
August 2022 His clerk files a copy in the Library of the House of Lords: -->
553:@Deepfriedokra has not accepted your argument. I don't either. I am not
423:
803:
falsely accused the couple of lying about the date of their marriage
598:
The decision in question (if it exists) has not been published yet:
762:
If what you say is true, then other sources will also publish this.
631:
Here is an example of where secondary sources were not good enough
154:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
1014:
Knowledge requested images of judicial and penal systems people
390:
340:
57:
38:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
15:
739:
February 2022 Lady Justice of Appeal writes her judgment: -->
394:
179:
994:
Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
767:
and then writing a story and filing it with the newsdesk.
537:
directorship. @Kusma: to alert him to this discussion.
925:. Being community banned, their edits are subject to
252:
Knowledge:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
238:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
989:
Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
255:
Template:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
272:This article has not yet received a rating on the
974:Unknown-importance biography (peerage) articles
921:– I've blocked the iP as yet another sock of
673:So how come No 10 escaped 14,000 pounds fine?
8:
858:to attract the attention of other editors. —
61:
979:Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
518:blocked me. Having blocked me he became
442:
285:
235:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
203:
89:
422:may be able to locate suitable images on
969:Start-Class biography (peerage) articles
445:
287:
258:Politics of the United Kingdom articles
205:
91:
751:will never appear on the website): -->
7:
333:This article is within the scope of
232:This article is within the scope of
140:This article is within the scope of
959:Biography articles of living people
343:and the subjects encompassed by it.
80:It is of interest to the following
635:. You are twisting the words of
457:RfC on removing the semiprotection
191:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage
14:
758:I don't understand your comment
736:In terms of the sources I used:
320:
310:
289:
225:
207:
127:
117:
93:
62:
21:This article must adhere to the
369:This article has been rated as
164:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
984:WikiProject Biography articles
964:Start-Class biography articles
249:Politics of the United Kingdom
240:Politics of the United Kingdom
215:Politics of the United Kingdom
167:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
939:15:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
912:14:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
883:18:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
868:18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
844:17:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
829:17:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
815:17:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
792:17:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
777:16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
716:15:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
700:14:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
671:on 20 May under the headline
649:15:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
615:15:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
594:15:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
568:14:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
547:12:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
513:17:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
472:14:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
246:and see a list of open tasks.
188:This article is supported by
24:biographies of living persons
152:contribute to the discussion
1004:Low-importance law articles
488:) 12:29 pm, Today (UTC−4)
36:must be removed immediately
1030:
375:project's importance scale
274:project's importance scale
368:
349:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
305:
271:
220:
187:
112:
88:
1009:WikiProject Law articles
999:Start-Class law articles
352:Template:WikiProject Law
403:It is requested that a
927:WP:Banned means banned
399:
184:
106:Peerage and Baronetage
70:This article is rated
398:
183:
143:WikiProject Biography
426:and other web sites.
420:WordPress Openverse
413:improve its quality
411:in this article to
853:edit semiprotected
418:The external tool
400:
185:
170:biography articles
76:content assessment
946:
945:
440:
439:
427:
389:
388:
385:
384:
381:
380:
284:
283:
280:
279:
202:
201:
198:
197:
56:
55:
1021:
857:
851:
763:
733:
669:Evening Standard
499:
443:
436:
434:
417:
397:
391:
357:
356:
353:
350:
347:
330:
325:
324:
314:
307:
306:
301:
293:
286:
260:
259:
256:
253:
250:
229:
222:
221:
211:
204:
172:
171:
168:
165:
162:
148:join the project
137:
135:Biography portal
132:
131:
130:
121:
114:
113:
108:
97:
90:
73:
67:
66:
58:
44:this noticeboard
16:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1020:
1019:
1018:
949:
948:
947:
900:Support removal
855:
849:
667:Writing in the
459:
450:
432:
430:
395:
354:
351:
348:
345:
344:
336:WikiProject Law
326:
319:
299:
257:
254:
251:
248:
247:
169:
166:
163:
160:
159:
133:
128:
126:
103:
74:on Knowledge's
71:
12:
11:
5:
1027:
1025:
1017:
1016:
1011:
1006:
1001:
996:
991:
986:
981:
976:
971:
966:
961:
951:
950:
944:
943:
942:
941:
915:
914:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
795:
794:
728:
727:
726:
725:
719:
718:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
571:
570:
458:
455:
452:
451:
446:
441:
438:
437:
428:
416:
401:
387:
386:
383:
382:
379:
378:
371:Low-importance
367:
361:
360:
358:
332:
331:
315:
303:
302:
300:Low‑importance
294:
282:
281:
278:
277:
270:
264:
263:
261:
244:the discussion
230:
218:
217:
212:
200:
199:
196:
195:
186:
176:
175:
173:
139:
138:
122:
110:
109:
98:
86:
85:
79:
68:
54:
53:
49:this help page
33:poorly sourced
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1026:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
990:
987:
985:
982:
980:
977:
975:
972:
970:
967:
965:
962:
960:
957:
956:
954:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
917:
916:
913:
909:
905:
901:
898:
897:
884:
880:
876:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
854:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
832:
831:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
799:
798:
797:
796:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
779:
778:
774:
770:
764:
759:
756:
745:
737:
734:
723:
722:
721:
720:
717:
713:
709:
704:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
687:
674:
670:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:WP:BLPPRIMARY
634:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:WP:BLPPRIMARY
600:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
565:
561:
556:
551:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
535:
529:
526:
521:
515:
514:
510:
506:
500:
495:
492:
491:<snip: -->
489:
487:
483:
477:
476:<snip: -->
474:
473:
469:
465:
456:
454:
453:
449:
444:
435:
429:
425:
421:
414:
410:
406:
402:
393:
392:
376:
372:
366:
363:
362:
359:
342:
338:
337:
329:
323:
318:
316:
313:
309:
308:
304:
298:
295:
292:
288:
275:
269:
266:
265:
262:
245:
241:
237:
236:
231:
228:
224:
223:
219:
216:
213:
210:
206:
193:
192:
182:
178:
177:
174:
157:
156:documentation
153:
149:
145:
144:
136:
125:
123:
120:
116:
115:
111:
107:
102:
99:
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
69:
65:
60:
59:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
26:
25:
20:
18:
17:
918:
899:
802:
765:
760:
757:
746:
738:
735:
729:
688:
685:
672:
668:
578:WP:PUBLISHED
533:
530:
516:
501:
496:
493:
490:
478:
475:
460:
404:
370:
355:law articles
334:
233:
189:
141:
82:WikiProjects
47:
35:
28:
22:
923:WP:LTA/VXFC
904:92.31.138.0
875:92.31.138.0
836:92.31.138.0
807:92.31.138.0
769:92.31.138.0
692:92.31.138.0
641:92.31.138.0
586:92.31.138.0
555:WP:INVOLVED
539:92.31.138.0
520:WP:INVOLVED
505:92.31.138.0
482:92.31.138.0
464:92.31.138.0
341:legal field
72:Start-class
953:Categories
534:ex officio
405:photograph
328:Law portal
161:Biography
101:Biography
40:libellous
931:Favonian
902:as nom.
676:justice.
576:Look at
409:included
373:on the
582:WP:BLP
525:WP:BLP
448:WP:BMB
433:Upload
424:Flickr
78:scale.
860:Kusma
821:Kusma
784:Kusma
708:Kusma
607:Kusma
560:Kusma
935:talk
919:Note
908:talk
879:talk
864:talk
840:talk
825:talk
811:talk
788:talk
773:talk
712:talk
696:talk
645:talk
611:talk
590:talk
564:talk
543:talk
509:talk
486:talk
468:talk
150:and
743:-->
605:. —
415:.
407:be
365:Low
346:Law
297:Law
268:???
29:BLP
955::
937:)
910:)
881:)
866:)
856:}}
850:{{
842:)
827:)
813:)
790:)
775:)
714:)
698:)
647:)
613:)
592:)
566:)
545:)
511:)
470:)
104::
933:(
906:(
877:(
862:(
838:(
823:(
809:(
786:(
771:(
710:(
694:(
643:(
609:(
588:(
562:(
541:(
507:(
484:(
466:(
377:.
276:.
194:.
158:.
84::
52:.
27:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
