Talk:Max Clifford/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP non-description of indecent assault

I've asked this question previously, and nobody has attempted a response. Perhaps giving the question its own section may help. This is a policy issue.

If you read the Jonathan Aitken article, and read the sections “Libel Action” and “Perjury Conviction and Imprisonment” you will see that we’re told in considerable detail how Aitken committed perjury. The text of the article doesn’t keep referring to “perjury” without any indication as to precisely what it was Aitken did that constituted perjury; the text doesn't leave the reader to trawl through the citations to locate the facts of the offending, nor does the corresponding Talk page contain any suggestion that the contributors should have left that to the reader.

We haven’t limited the detail of Aiken’s offending to “perjury”, and the Mick Philpott article doesn't keep referring to the “manslaughter of six children” without telling us what was manslaughter – the starting of the fire etc.

So, why the discrepancy between our description of perjury, or manslaughter, and our non-description of indecent assault?

In the case of perjury, manslaughter or murder we detail the offence rather than recording it simply as "the manslaughter of a fifteen-year-old" or "an act of perjury in x court of law"; whereas in the case of indecent assault, the offence is not described, and is recorded simply as "indecent assault" against somebody of x age.

What WP policy is being used here? I've been unable to locate it - and I trawled through a lot of policy before asking again!Alrewas (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there isn't a policy specifically for every point of detail. We rely on an article-by-article consensus for which facts are included. The level of detail on the crimes you mention will depend on the particular circumstances of the article and the local consensus. I don't see how you would lay down a policy that dictates the same level of detail in all cases. If you wish to pursue that, then somewhere like Village Pump is the place to raise it, not here. This page is about the specifics of this article and per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, what goes on elsewhere is not particularly relevant. Looking at the level of detail in this article, I don't see the point of adding more. This is an encyclopedia article not a newspaper; detailed accounts of sexual offences can appear prurient and tabloid-like. If you want to put forward a case for more detail, then do so and consensus will determine the result. But just saying other articles have more detail is a poor argument that is unlikely to be successful. Also, I suggest you drop your frequent remarks that editors are making editing choices because they are male. Apart from it being a potential breach of WP:NPA that kind of crude gender stereotyping looks particularly silly when all you've got to go on are pseudonymous account names (which may be misleading).DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You say that "detailed accounts of sexual offences can appear prurient and tabloid-like." Alternatively, detail may forestall the sort of erroneous presumption which a far more experienced contributor than I has sought to correct here-: What exactly did this guy do. As for the tabloids and not a newspaper, one problem we have - also referred to in What exactly did this guy do, is that the tabloids have been very thin on detail. Our only WP:RS for the detail are the judge's sentencing remarks, which aren't in breach of WP:RS, and are probably significant. As for prurience: if that was a consideration, where would that leave WP articles such as Oral sex? I'm sorry if you feel that my comments about editing choices were "silly," but it's a point which has been made by commentators who, in some articles on gender issues, might be considered significant people (and I say that without wishing to negate your very valid point regarding pseudonyms). Alrewas (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than speaking in the abstract, propose an amendment to the text and see whether others agree with your proposal. It's difficult to comment further without seeing the specifics of any change. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to edit this article. It's for others to give my points due consideration, or not. The problem with leaving the term "indecent assault" unspecified has already been rehearsed by others at What exactly did this guy do, so if I've not explained myself terribly well, perhaps you could have a read of what others are saying there. All the best.Alrewas (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you edit the article. It's quite normal to propose text on the article talk page. In fact, if you're not going to do that then nothing constructive will come of further discussion with you. The purpose of the article talk pages is to agree changes to the article not to chew the fat on generalised points per WP:NOTFORUM. Also, please can you use indentation in your posts per WP:THREAD. DeCausa (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested that at least some of the assaults might be described, rather than leaving the nature of the indecent assaults open to reader conjecture. That's a very clear and concrete suggestion upon which anybody here is capable of building, should they feel that it's appropriate to build upon that. I'd be happy for anybody else to choose the exact wording, using the sentencing remarks as a guide. Your continued implication is that I'm stupid and therefore not qualified to comment here. You're right that we can have no idea who here is a man and who is a woman (though I don't think anybody impartial would doubt that the majority are men). What we can note with certainty is that when comments were made on the Rolf Harris talk page accusing his victims (who are living persons) of perjury, there was not one man on here brave enough to stick up for a woman calling for those remarks to be removed. I had to take my case higher up in Wikipedia, via email, in order to get those slanderous remarks removed. Nobody (other than the contact higher up in Wikipedia) has since apologised to me and said, "Sorry, you weren't a crazy woman, we got that wrong." And yet you lecture me on protocol, rather than addressing substantive points that I've made.Alrewas (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

None of your comments regarding the Rolf Harris talk page are relevant here. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. I suppose if someone agrees with you and proposes some wording for this article then this could move on. Until then there's nothing further to be said. But is there a reason you steadfastly refuse to follow WP:THREAD? DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your approach is bullying, sexist and appalling, and wholly dismissive of victims of rape. I have said much above which was of relevance to the Max Clifford article. All of it was dismissed as stupid. Others have made points on the Rolf Harris talk page regarding my comments about Max clifford here (as evidence of my stupidity), so I make no apologies for simply referring to comments made on the Rolf Harris talk page in order to support my suggestions for the Max Clifford article. The approach taken on the Rolf Harris talk page was appalling until I made my complaint to persons higher up and the slanderous remarks were removed. Since then I note that contributors to the Rolf Harris talk page have upped their game, with some making points similar to those I have been mocked for making here. Alrewas (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have concrete proposals regarding this article, please make them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have made them. Please see my comments on this Talk Page. I made them, people responded, and I responded to their responses, and I'm now told none of that happened. Alrewas (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'll tell you something else. Yes I am very damaged. You lot know that you're dealing with a damaged woman, and that's giving you a kick? Ever considered growing up? I know what it's like to feel that people won't believe what's been done to you, hence my wish that there should be more detail in these articles, beyond a simple reference to 'indecent assault.' Others have now made the same point on the Rolf Harris Talk Page (which is why I reference that here), but they're not dismissed as crazy for doing so. Yes, I am starting to feel rather crazy, after being dismissed and baited by men here for weeks and weeks. Men who were too cowardly to agree with me that slanderous comments about prosecution witnesses whose evidence had convicted should be removed, and men who were too cowardly to send me an apology after somebody higher up had removed the offending comments. Alrewas (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. I have no interest in continuing discussions with a contributor incapable of staying on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

When I was on topic, none of you had the slightest interest in the substantive points I made. Everything was dismissed, and I pointed out, very nicely, why I felt that the objections to what I'd said were wobbly. I then discovered that the same people who dismissed my substantive points here were tolerating, on another page, accusations of perjury against prosecution witnesses - living persons - whose evidence had just convicted in a court of law. I was horrified, and I make no excuse for having been horrified. My requests that those remarks be removed were rejected by some of the same people who dismissed my suggestions for improving the Max Clifford article. I rather suspect, from the way that I am still treated as a basket case, that men here are angry with me that somebody higher up in Wikipedia overrode them and removed the slanderous remarks after I emailed Wikipedia. There are men here who are determined to treat me so dismissively that I flip, which I've now done. 1 - 0 boys, huh? Well done. Not one of you is able to admit to any wrong-doing. Sometimes I can react too strongly when talking with men, and if I upset anybody I'm happy to apologise. The nice Martin Evans who has discussed with me on my own Talk Page can testify to that. Nobody here is able to say to me (and whichever of the two Talk Pages we're on, it's the same people), "We're sorry, you weren't wrong to feel really upset when you saw that people were accusing witnesses of having talked "garbage", we're sorry that we didn't understand your anger about that." Alrewas (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My last on-topic comment was made in this section on 1st August at 21:42. The response which I received to that was not on topic, so neither has any of this thread been on-topic since then. If you have something substantive to say, Andy, go back to 21:42 on 1st August and respond to me, point by point (though you would need to read previous comments and sections to get the context).Alrewas (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I responded to your post of 1 August and I said this: "Rather than speaking in the abstract, propose an amendment to the text and see whether others agree with your proposal. It's difficult to comment further without seeing the specifics of any change." I don't know how it could be more on topic. Your response has been unconstructive: you seem more interested in making political points about Wikipedia editors than improving the Max Clifford article. Furthermore I was not involved in the thread at the Rolf Harris page that you are complaining about, and am not even very sure of what it was about. It has got nothing to do with me or the Max Clifford article. And why oh why can you not indent your posts like virtually every other editor. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WTF??? I've just read your earlier post to which Andy the Grump replied. You said that I am "wholly dismissive of victims of rape". That is a disgusting personal attack based on nothing and you are a disgrace. DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm a victim of rape by men, and you've been wholly dismissive of the wholly substantive points which I had made to you. Points pertinent to rape. When I say that the articles are poor, I don't mean the articles in their entirety. The coverage of Max Clifford's contributions to the field in which he worked is first-rate. The section on his offending was, I felt, in need of improvement, and I explained very exhaustively why, yet every point I made was dismissed - and I explained just as exhaustively why the grounds on which my points were dismissed did not hold water in my eyes.Alrewas (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm done with discussing this with you. Wikipedia is not the place to resolve one's own personal issues however traumatic. The only point of participating in this article talk page is to improve the article's encyclopedic content. DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Which I have sought to do. You could have responded to my post on 1st August by telling me why you don't think that vagueness about Max Clifford's offences leads to the problems which have belatedly been acknowledged in relation to another sexual offender by contributors over in What exactly did this guy do. You could have told me why you don't think that it's true that detailing Max Clifford's offences, far from being tabloidesque, is in fact something which the tabloids avoided (a point I made here long ago, which has also belatedly been acknowledged over in What exactly did this guy do in relation to another sexual offender). You could have told me why you don't feel that there is an inconsistency in arguing that detailing an indecent assault is excessively prurient, whilst - I can only presume, as you never told me - accepting that a WP article on oral sex, including graphic depictions of oral sex, isn't excessively prurient. If, on the other hand, you felt on reflection that any of the further assurances I gave on 1st August in support of adding detail to the relevant section in the Max Clifford article bore some merit, you could have acknowledged that, even if you felt that there were still some problems. Instead, you chose to treat this as a forum in which you shout down somebody who dares to rebut your points by telling them that unless they give you a complete manifesto, there is no further point engaging with them. I made my points to others on this Talk Page very politely to begin with, but as some of my earlier points were robust points pertaining to gender, other contributors' defences came up and I was treated shabbily by men, which later provoked a reaction when I saw what some of the same people were in fact tolerating on another Talk Page (making a total mockery of WP's integrity). You again provoked a reaction by shouting me down when I responded to your points perfectly constructively and politely on 1st August, acknowledging validity where I saw it. Your suggestion that I use WP to resolve my personal issues would be recognised by anybody less partial than most of you are as a further example of the dismissive attitude of which I've spoken already. You have no evidence whatsoever that I use WP to resolve anything in my personal life, a life of which you know nothing other than the occasional vague piece of information I've chosen to divulge. I hope that I have indented correctly (my first attempt). Alrewas (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No you haven't. It's explained in WP:THREAD. You need to type one extra colon at the front of your post than the post you are replying to. So, to reply to this post you need to type three colons. If someone then replies to you (which won't be me) they will type four colons. If you want to reply to them you must type five colons and so on. DeCausa (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Indecent assault convictions section of the article says that he would have been prosecuted for rape had the offences taken place after the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force. This Act broadened the definition of rape to include oral rape; hence we can deduce that is what Clifford did. Jim Michael (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable, or unacceptable, if we were to delete this section? In retrospect, I concede that my approach here was over-the-top and not conducive to the improvement of this article. I may on close examination of the above feel that I had one or two constructive points to contribute, but I feel that on balance the above serves very little purpose in terms of this article. My wish to see it removed is based on an entirely selfish consideration: I wish to focus on the far less contentious matter of expanding the religious sites sections of Wikipedia articles, and expanding some Wikipedia articles on ecclesiastical history (I have already been told that a couple of my efforts in those areas have been acceptable and that I should do more), and I have no intention of wading into contentious current affairs issues again, and selfishly I do not particularly want people who share my interest in old church buildings to stumble upon this example of me embarrassing myself on a Talk Page I should never have waded into, at a time when clearly my behaviour was not wholly rational. I apologise sincerely to those to whom I was rude and unreasonable. On that basis, would it be acceptable to delete this section? I seek guidance as I certainly would not be happy to delete it unilaterally, as that is no way to proceed. I'm reluctant to simply create a new account, as I have already made some acceptable contributions to WP articles using this account, as you can see if you visit my Talk Page. Alrewas (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Siblings

We have "He was the youngest of four children (eldest sister, two brothers) by nearly 10 years to his next sibling." The third (Harold) was born in late 1936 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVQ6-NQ4S) which is about 6 and a half year before Max. Not sure that 6 and a half is "nearly 10". Nigej (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, although "by 6 and a half years" might look a bit awkward. I see all siblings are currently unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

True. Probably simplest just to remove "by nearly 10 years to his next sibling". Nigej (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I have removed and added a "cn" tag. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It is still a poorly written sentence, IMHO. It would be better to stick with sourced facts and leave it as "He was the youngest of four children". Add stuff about his sister and brothers as and when a source is found.... Thoughts? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Appeal

The article states "On 7 November 2014, an appeal against his eight-year sentence for sex offences was rejected by the Court of Appeal." Who brought the appeal? It's not clear whether it was by Clifford, or by prosecutors who thought the sentence was unduly lenient.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The final sentence says: "Clifford's actions were deemed merely to show no remorse, and not to justify an increased penalty on appeal, although ruling out a reduction in sentence due to mitigating factors; in contrast Hall's sentence was actually increased on appeal." I had assumed this meant the appeal was brought by the prosecution. But I agree it could and should be clearer. So I have tweaked the wording and added the Appeal Court ruling as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the source you added confirms that it was Clifford who appealed, backed up by this Guardian report here. I'll update the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for sorting that out. Although I think he was appealing only against the sentence, not the conviction. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, just amended that. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)