Johnobrienuk
Welcome!
edit
|
Controversy.
The section refers to the alleged cover up of sexual abuse of a boy at the school. The site has now been semi protected by the school and the headmaster. Mike Piercy apparently wrote the controversy section. The section is biased in that it is stated that the Seveonaoks Chronicle claims....... The word claims should be replaced with the word reported. The Newspaper made no claims, merely reported the proven facts. The word "claims" is a piece of blatant spin used by the author to minimise public perception of the schools behaviour in response to the award of by Criminial Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of sexual abuse of one of its pupils.
The word claimed is also used in respect of the perpetrator having been previously suspended. Again, the newspaper made no claims. It reported the facts. The words claimed should be changed to the word reported.
In the first sentence, the same "spin" technique is is used....."....a former pupil who claimed...." The use of the word claim implies doubt. The school has written to the child saying that did not doubt his testimony, but is saying another thing publicly. The sentence should be changed to "....a former pupil disclosed".
The page should not be an advertisement and public relations platform for the New Beacon School. It should be open to editing. Otherwise Wiki is being used by the school to protect its reputation in the very serious matter of the sexual abuse of children.
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
- Without knowing which article this refers to, I really am unable to help. Mdann52 (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom
editPlease do not keep adding your material to that article. It is an umbrella article that gives an overview, and it is not appropriate to give details of one particular case in that article. Even the Rotherham scandal and the Savile scandal only warrant a sentence or two in that article, because they are covered better in other articles. If the matter is sufficiently notable to warrant its own separate article, you (or someone) needs to create it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I noted this user's comments that suggest the school has been removing material damaging to its reputation. I do not see any evidence that anyone from the school has changed the article in recent months although I have myself had to remove quite a lot of repetitive and badly-referenced material on the subject of this single case. Deb (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You have misread my comments re the Headmasters action which does not as far as I am aware relate to the Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article. All posts made by me to the New Beacon School article were correctly referenced. They appear to have been removed by Headmaster New Beacon School. Kindly advise on what action can be taken in this case of the school publishing biased and misleading information, contrary to Wiki policy concerning this sensitive case of child sexual abuse. The comments above refer to the New Beacon School article and not to the Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article.Your comments re == Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom == are noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/109.93.20.241|109.93.20.241]] (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- From what you say, it appears that you were the anonymous editor who made edits like this. If so, you should read policy on conflict of interest. It seems inappropriate for you to be editing that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Having read the conflict the conflict of interest policy, I think that it is inappropriate for the school to be editing the New Beacon Article. It has a clear conflict of interest. What is your opinion on that? For your information, I have recently completed a six year academic research study in Switzerland on Child Sexual Abuse in the Traditional English Schools. The New Beacon School is a case study of secondary abuse, that is of spin being used to cover up and minimise the problem. Is it your advice that I should write a separate article on the problem of cover up of sexual abuse by English schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.20.241 (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I can assure you that I am 100% unconnected with the school and don't live in the area. Sadly, it seems that you have a personal axe to grind here and you should declare any conflict of interest; your refusal to do so is bound to incur suspicion. Also, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for guidance on the use of language in articles. Deb (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Johnobrienuk: Regarding this edit, I'd be grateful if you use my user name, not my real name, in future posts. I'm obviously not hiding anything, but equally I don't particularly want to encourage unnecessary spamming. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Were you paid for writing the article? Your refusal to answer this question is bound to incur suspicion. What is reason for using the word claim, rather than reported ? I do not understand your reason for bias in this article.
Hello, Johnobrienuk. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Deb (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Child Sexual Abuse in English Independent Schools, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Child Sexual Abuse in English Independent Schools
edit
Hello, Johnobrienuk. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Child Sexual Abuse in English Independent Schools".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)