Talk:Elm Guest House child abuse scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Exaro as a reliable source

I've raised a question at WP:RS/N, as to whether the journalism site Exaro is a reliable source for our purposes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

.... and got the following response to the question:

Yes and no. Yes because it is Exaro carries out genuine investigative journalism. No, because stories breaking on Exaro are just that: breaking news. Best to wait for the stories to be picked up by other media. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and correct to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems, at face value, to be generous. Is that discussion still running? I suppose it hasn't been archived yet, but I'd love to hear from more editors--not that I doubt Itsmejudith, who has a lovely name and is probably extraordinarily beautiful, besides a seasoned and respected editor, but because it's an important enough matter. I'm going to ask around a bit. IN THE MEANTIME, my assessment of this breaking news outfit, combined with the opinion of Itsmejudith and Ghmyrtle, is that it should not be used as a source, certainly not for making general claims like "The police have been accused of..." if such claims are not supported by other (obviously reliable) sources. If such content is restored, I will revert, and so may anyone else, and the article will be fully protected, since there are BLP issues here. Let me note also that edit-warring is a concern here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite content with Exaro as a reliable source. It has led every aspect of this story which has inched into more mainstream publications, and is, indeed, regularly quoted by them. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Where it's quoted by mainstream publications, its findings can be used. I think the problem only arises when WP editors with direct access to its findings try to add those findings before they have been checked to their satisfaction by the mainstream media, and published. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful about Exaro. It clearly has an agenda of its own. Its tone sometimes seems to me only one step away from the many hysterical, muckraking, conspiracy-theorist blogs that we wouldn't touch with a bargepole. The facts Exaro gives may be correct, but we should be aware of the gloss the site puts on them. -- Alarics (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, one should be careful with all sources, but I have no issue with Exaro. It's a far better source than many on Wikipedia and I see no reason why, as 'leaders' in breaking stories, they should not be cited or used. They are credible and their stories well researched and supported. Stephenjh (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

New sources

You've done a beautiful job combiing the Fairbank and Fernbridge pages into one page on Elm Guest House. I wanted to run them past you a couple of things that I would like to add into the Elm Guest House page. Bearing in mind that Exaro and the Mirror don't count as sources I have found links to the same information on the BBC and Daily Mail websites. Does that sound OK to you? I chose Exaro and the Mirror originally because the facts I wanted to include are easier to find within their stories. The Mail and BBC stories are longer and contain a lot of other detail.

1.) John Stingemore, who used to help run the Grafton Close Children's home, is named as the 70-year-old arrested man from Sussex in this BBC story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21349730. The 66-year-old who was arrested is also named by the BBC as Father Tony McSweeney (the Catholic priest).

Their ages and where they live are corroborated in this met police statement: http://content.met.police.uk/News/Two-men-arrested-as-part-of-Operation-Fernbridge/1400014947847/1257246745756?scope_id=1257246764279

2.) That Haroon Kasir ran the guesthouse alongside his wife Carole, and that they were both convicted of running a disorderly house is mentioned in this Daily Mail story. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272253/Timebomb-Elm-Guest-House-Pop-stars-bishop-politician-appear-list-seized-police-investigating-child-abuse-London-hotel-1980s.html

Now I've found more acceptable sources - is it ok for me to insert those facts onto the page?

best wishes, Emma1913 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma1913 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 February 2013‎ Copied from User talk:Ghmyrtle

My views on the Daily Mail are that it's not an ideal source - it's not very reliable on matters to do with the EU or the Lib Dems, for example (!) - but for straight investigative journalism it might in some circumstances be acceptable, as would the Mirror. I'd prefer it if the matter was reported in, say, the Independent (which has a track record in this area and is regarded as reliable), but we'll see what others think. The BBC source is fine, as (in my opinion) is the police source. There may well be other sources that mention Haroon Kasir - I see he's mentioned here, but that's equally a source that we can't rely on. I'd be interested in other editors' views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Ghmyrtle. The DM article is a very good piece of investigative journalism in this case. I also wish that other reliable papers were covering the story to this level of depth. I still have reservations about naming the individuals arrested, though. I added the details of their arrest to the article and I believe that is sufficient. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that anyone thinks the Daily Mail is more of a reliable source than the Daily Mirror. They and the Sun and the Express are all gutter newspapers, all equally unreliable in my view because of their cavalier disregard for factual accuracy. -- Alarics (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom Watson's PMQ source

In the current revision, the article has "Watson raised the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions on 24 October 2012.[1][3] The information was passed to him by a journalist from the investigative news website Exaro" But on Watson's blog: http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/10/a-little-more-background-on-todays-pmqs he says

"Last week I was contacted by a former child protection specialist who for some years, had been concerned that [...] a large body of material seized in the raid on Righton’s home had not been fully investigated. [...] Over the last few days I have spoken to two other child protection specialists who share the concern of the gentleman who contacted me."

I see that the BBC article cited can be read as implying that information passed by Exaro prompted Watson's question, but it doesn't actually say that. It just mentions the question and says that Exaro had passed him information. No link is (explicitly) made, though the implication is clear.

Since the "child protection specialist" version of the source also has multiple possible citations (e.g. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3578750.ece ), albeit most likely sourced from Watson's blog entry, above, perhaps this version should be mentioned, or even preferred to the bbc version, which seems to be the only available cite for Exaro as Watson's source (that I can find, anyway.) It's tempting to infer that a child protection specialist became an Exaro journalist, and then passed Watson the Righton allegation, but that would be Original Research :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.190.10 (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Article title and scope

As the scope of the various investigations seems to widen - for example this report today, on which I've included a couple of sentences - it seems that the existing article title may be inappropriate. I'm not sure what any new title should be, or whether this article should now be split up into several smaller articles, but it's something we ought to think about. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have pondered this and still cannot think of a solution. EGH and Dolphin Square seem interconnected with the Westminster paedophile dossier, even Saville, and other celebrity cases and North Wales could be bought under a wider early 2010s abuse cases article, but I cannot fathom it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I think we should still be keeping the article title under review. As the allegations have continued and developed, I wonder whether it may be better now to rename the article as Operation Fairbank - while retaining the earlier information as background material in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My personal view is that it would be better to keep the actual article content as it currently is (rather than splitting it up into several smaller articles). I agree that we should keep the article title under review, but with no easy solution for a new title, my preference would be to keep the existing title for a while longer until more information comes to light from the current investigations. The situation continues to develop as the police investigate what is clearly a very major investigation. As times goes by, a new article title may become more apparent. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

One editor has recently seemed keen to increase the weight in the lead section given to "pop stars" or "singers". The reference from The Independent does not state that pop stars are alleged to have carried out any abuse at Elm Guest House. It merely states that pop stars were alleged to have visited the premises. The source does not state anything about the alleged visitors being "singers". The description of "pop stars" can also sometimes be given to keyboard players and guitarists etc in a pop band. The source does not specify that they were "singers".

"Pop stars" and "pop singers" do not feature in the main body of the article, but after recent edits they were featured twice in separate paragraphs in the lead section as being alleged visitors. A lead featuring "pop stars" as alleged visitors once seems to be perfectly adequate without them needing to be mentioned as visitors twice in separate paragraphs in the lead section.

For example, Anthony Blunt is mentioned in the lead section once as being an alleged visitor to Elm Guest House. Blunt is not mentioned twice as an alleged visitor in separate paragraphs in the lead section. So I feel that "pop stars" do not need to be given any more weight in the lead as alleged visitors than Anthony Blunt.

I have therefore removed the description of "pop singers" from the lead section and there is now just the one reference in the lead section to "pop stars", which seems to me to be adequate. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

One editor has recently seemed keen to remove pop stars / singers from the article, in spite of the fact that the reference is reliable and supports the other 'professionals' listed in the lede! Their contributions elsewhere illuminate possible bias perhaps. Never-the-less I think the way it is written now is correct - "pop stars" is referenced, and that is what should be (and is) stated. Stephenjh (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased that we are in agreement that the wording now is correct and appropriate. I removed "singers" because that is not what the source from The Independent said. As explained above, the reference said that "pop stars" were alleged to have visited the premises. The reference did not state anything about singers. "Pop stars" can be a description that is also sometimes given to musicians in a pop group who play instruments, but do not sing.

To clarify my recent contributions regarding this, on 18 December 2014 (UK time) an anonymous IP user inserted wording into the lead section to state that "singers" were alleged to have groomed and sexualy abused children at Elm Guest House. This was incorrect and there already existed in a later paragraph in the lead section appropriate wording which said that pop stars were alleged to have visited the premises, with a citation from The Independent. Therefore the following day on 19 December (UK time) I removed the incorrect assertion that "singers" were alleged to have abused children. I kept the appropriate wording in a later paragraph that pop stars were alleged visitors.

On 21 December, a registered Wikipedia user inserted incorrect content that again claimed that singers were alleged to have abused children at Elm Guest House. This incorrect assertion was correctly removed just over an hour later by the editor Ghmyrtle.

On 23 December, a registered Wikipedia user undid that revision by Ghmyrtle and again inserted incorrect content claiming that singers were alleged to have abused children. The content was later changed just over an hour later by another editor to "pop stars". The following day, on 24 December, I removed the incorrect assertion that pop stars were alleged to have abused children at Elm Guest House and I kept the appropriate wording later in the lead which stated that pop stars were alleged visitors.

Later, on 24 December, the lead section was reordered again by another editor, stating that "pop singers" were alleged to have visited Elm Guest House, with a suggestion in the edit summary that there had been 'edit warring' and content removal.

On 27 December, I changed the wording of "pop singers" to "pop stars" (as per the source from The Independent) and I gave an explanation on the talk page for my edit. As mentioned above, the source did not state that the pop stars were "singers". I also explained on the talk page that I did not feel that "pop stars" needed to be featured twice in separate paragraphs in the lead section as being alleged visitors, when for example, Anthony Blunt is only mentioned once in the lead as being an alleged visitor and not twice. The same weight should be given to pop stars and Blunt as both being alleged visitors.

No citation from a reliable source currently exists to suggest that pop stars are alleged to have groomed or abused children at Elm Guest House. My recent contributions to this in the month of December have been entirely consistent with what the source from The Independent states, that pop stars are alleged to have visited the premises. The Independent did not state anything about "singers". I hope that clarifies things.

I would certainly hope that I am not biased in my editing. For example, I have a soft spot for the lovely Julie Etchingham, but my edits to that article have only been to tidy references and I won't show any bias to her if in the future I provide any additional content. Likewise, I have a particular admiration for Rafael Nadal, but my edits to the Nadal article so far have been mostly to tidy references and I have edited in a neutral way. As I sit typing this in front of my PC, I have sitting on my lap my pet Pug. I think Pugs are a wonderful breed of sweet-natured gentle lap dogs, but I won't display bias or favouritism towards Pugs on the Wikipedia article.

Anyway, I am pleased that we are now in agreement that the wording is appropriate and correct, that pop stars are alleged to have visited Elm Guest House. Regards and a Happy New Year to editors. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015 update

Hitherto the lead section named prominent people alleged to have attended Elm Guest House, including Cyril Smith, Anthony Blunt, Sir Peter Hayman, and the Foreign Office barrister Colin Peters. A reliable source from The Independent verified the names of these alleged visitors. I have this evening added to the list the name of Peter Morrison because The Daily Telegraph in January 2015 reported that he is alleged to have raped a 14-year-old boy at Elm Guest House.

If anybody has any objections to Morrison being included in the lead section, I am happy to take on board any concerns. But the content is verified by a reliable source from The Daily Telegraph, so I felt it was appropriate to include that Morrison is alleged to have carried out a crime at Elm Guest House. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right to include it, now that the Telegraph is (rather to my surprise, I must say) being so unequivocal about the story. -- Alarics (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015 update

As mentioned above, the name of Peter Morrison was this year added to the lead section, as the reliable source in The Daily Telegraph linked him to an allegation of abusing a boy at Elm Guest House in the 1980s. I have this evening added the names of two other former senior politicians Leon Brittan and Sir Nicholas Fairbairn as being linked to allegations of abusing boys at Elm Guest House, because reliable sources from two other broadsheet newspapers - The Independent on Sunday and The Scostman have linked Brittan and Fairbairn with allegations of abuse at Elm Guest House in the 1980s.

Of course, I fully recognise that nothing was ever proven in court regarding Morrison, Brittan and Fairbairn (they were never prosecuted - Morrison received a police caution for molesting underage boys and was never charged with any crime during his lifetime.) These are merely allegations in the lead section that have been made (which contain citations from reliable sources). If anybody has any objections to Morrison, Brittan and Fairbairn being included in the lead section as being linked to allegations, I am happy to take on board any concerns. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled by the way the mention of Leon Brittan is worded. It seems to give the impression that the allegations against him must have some substance. The Independent on Sunday article cited as our source ( http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lord-brittan-the-accusations-against-the-former-home-secretary-that-refused-to-die-10000618.html ) says that these allegations have been made, but the author does not himself make them, and he spells out that there is no actual evidence, that it is all hearsay and tittle-tattle from some pretty flaky sources, one of whom is a convicted fraudster. Other sources have vehemently rejected the allegations. The Fairbairn situation I am not so familiar with. In the case of Morrison we are on much stronger ground because he has been explicitly named by at least one other former Conservative minister (Edwina Currie) as a notorious pederast. These three names do not seem to me to be on an equal footing. If we are to mention Brittan at all, I think a more tentative wording would be appropriate. -- Alarics (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I take on board what you have said, and so until I can perhaps come up with more tentative wording regarding Leon Brittan, I have removed his name from the lead section. The author of the Independent on Sunday article, James Hanning, writes: "It is quite possible Brittan was entirely innocent." My view is that it is certainly entirely possible he was innocent. Brittan has only been linked to allegations and I certainly don't assume guilt. Hanning writes that Brittan said he had "no recollection of having been to the Elm Guest House". He suggests that major claims have been made against Brittan, but there is a lack of concrete evidence. I would go along with that view, and so in the absence of more tentative wording, I have removed his name from the lead section. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

On 8 March 2015, The Daily Telegraph reported that six weeks after Leon Brittan died, his family home in North Yorkshire, and his property in Pimlico, London, were searched by detectives from Operation Midland, set up by the Metropolitan Police to investigate claims of child sex abuse by Westminster politicans and other VIPs. Clearly, a search of Brittan's family properties does not mean that he is guilty of any offence - merely that an investigation is taking place as part of police inquiries. Perhaps it may be possible to have tentative wording to add that Brittan's family properties were searched as part of Operation Midland. However, I will not add that particular content to the main article tonight. Perhaps it could be added at a later date if people do not express concerns.

A reference to that article from The Daily Telegraph reporting that Brittan's family properties were searched by Operation Midland detectives is at the link below: Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is not Wikipedia's job to keep up in detail with every reported police search of a property from one day to the next when we don't yet know what the police are looking for or what they may have found, if anything. Isn't this WP:RECENTISM? We are not a newspaper. Can we not just say that police investigations are ongoing and otherwise wait until something more definite is announced? -- Alarics (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

References

IPCC investigation

Material on yesterday's news story has been added by myself in this article, and by JezGrove at Westminster paedophile dossier. I don't think that's a problem in itself, but we will need to make sure that the articles are consistent with each other in what they say - unless people think there is a case for restructuring (not merging) the articles, or creating a new one based around the latest inquiries. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Morrison and Fairbairn

There is a continuing slow edit warring process over the inclusion of the allegations against Peter Morrison and Nicholas Fairbairn in the introductory paragraphs. Both died in 1995, twenty years ago. I see no good reason to exclude mentioning the allegations in the lead - they are specific, sourced, serious allegations against deceased prominent individuals. But, whatever the views of individual editors, there should be discussion here to agree the way forward on this point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you are going to put their names in the lead then you should add the names of all the other politicians who have been accused aswell, furthermore they are only allegations, not concrete proof that any such things happened, unlike with Cyril Smith. Therefore until it is found that these allegations are indeed truthful they should not be included in the introductory paragraphs. Plus the allegations are mentioned further on in the article anyway so there is no need for them to be in the introduction. SleepCovo (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your second point is false. The purpose of the introductory paragraphs is to summarise the whole article. Points mentioned in the introductory paragraphs therefore must be mentioned, and often expanded upon, in later paragraphs - see MOS:INTRO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect yourself. You cannot summarise the whole article by saying that it was all Peter Morrison and Nicholas Fairbairn. Why not put all the politicians who have been accused in the summary rather then just these two? The points you refer to have no business being there especially when they are not expanded upon later. Either you put all the names of the accused in the opening summary or you put none, you cannot pick and choose. SleepCovo (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That was not the point I was making. Personally, I have no strong views on whether Morrison and Fairbairn should be mentioned in the introduction or not. I simply reverted your change in order to re-establish the status quo ante, and encourage you to come here to discuss the matter. That's fine. But, so far, no-one has agreed with you. What needs to happen now is for the other editors who have reverted you to give their points of view, on this page, so as to help establish a consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people ARE named in the lede, politicians too. Fairbairn is treated no differently to any of the others. Morrison's mentioned because he is 'accused' of rape (specific) and possibly being linked to a murder. Stephenjh (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If you re add their names then I will be adding all the other politicians accused to the introduction as only having those two names is showing an unfair bias against two people who have only had allegations made against them, at this moment in time they are only accusations. The others who have been mentioned in the lead are: Cyril Smith, who has been found to have abused boys; Peter Hayman, who was jailed; Anthony Blunt, who is a disgraced spy; and a barrister who was also jailed. They can be named as they have been either found guilty and jailed or there is enough evidence to show that they committed their crimes. The editor Stephenjh mentions that he has been 'accused', so remind me again as to when that became 'proven true or found guilty'. I do not think it is appropriate to add these two politicians names to the introduction, once the allegations have been proven true then fair enough add them, but until then it is not acceptable. SleepCovo (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's nonsense. BLP doesn't apply and this isn't a trial! Go ahead add the names, it's the best suggestion you've made so far. Stephenjh (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What you think is nonsense is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is the allegations have not been proven true so they should not be in the introduction! SleepCovo (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no "bias", they are included as are others firstly because it's a summary of the article, secondly because their names are mentioned by reliable sources, thirdly because they are dead (so no BLP violations). Wikipedia isn't accusing, it's detailing the accusations. It's your editing that is adding bias. Stephenjh (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see no reason according to the Wiki MOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Biographies_of_living_persons) why these two names should not be included, in fact they should be to fulfill the requirements of the lede section.

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate". Stephenjh (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only that but the allegations against Nicholas Fairbairn are mentioned in the lede in his article! Stephenjh (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that argument as relevant - the fact that the allegations may be important in an overview of Fairbairn's career (I'm not sure they are, but anyway...) has little bearing on whether they are sufficiently notable to be included in the introduction of this article. But, more importantly, "a clear, accessible style" certainly does not mean creating WP:EASTEREGG links like those in this edit. Either name them, or don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the allegations aren't sufficiently notable what on earth is? I didn't know about Easter Eggs, I though that was a bit of a compromise, and I'm not sure it is an "Easter Egg" either, the lede can still be followed / printed and makes total sense. Never-the-less I see no valid argument according to any wiki protocols I can see, that would support the names not being there. Others are mentioned and it's only one editor that has taken exception to two of the names. That editor wanted a discussion but doesn't discuss, respond to points made, or support their reasoning with anything from MOS. Stephenjh (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If no other editors wish to discuss the issue here, it is not going to be resolved without getting the views of some previously uninvolved editors through the dispute resolution process, as I suggested. I'm content with leaving the names out of the introduction - to me, it really is not a very important issue. The introduction is supposed to give an overview, and it is not necessary to go into details of the growing number of names who have been mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean leaving all the names out, or just the ones Sleepcovo doesn't want in there? Stephenjh (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I don't see the allegations against Fairbairn as being much different to those against the other individuals already named in the lead, so he should be included, for consistency. Essentially, we need to remember that the article is (or should be) essentially about matters linked to the guest house - unless and until the article is renamed. But Morrison is in a different category - the allegations against him may be at least as serious but seem less concrete, and can be covered by the reference to "other politicians" rather than being included in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The individuals are all notable in their own right, but none of them should be in the lede, which as has been said is an overview. Too much detail that early. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an ongoing news story that is developing and expanding month by month. When the article was started it was right to include names like Smith as they were at the core of the allegations. Now the story has spread, it's very hard to discern what the "overview" is - or, at least, who are the most important names to be mentioned. Mentioning some names in the lead is, I think, necessary, because it shows readers the sort of level of prominence of the individuals concerned - and, for consistency I think it's right to include Fairbairn. Including other names - of people who are not directly linked to the parties - is more problematic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: SleepCovo has falsely claimed in this edit that serious allegations of abuse have not been made against Fairbairn. They clearly have been made against Fairbairn, for example here, and so that argument carries no weight. Reverted accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Remind me again when a newspaper article meant that such accusations were truthful? SleepCovo (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What you (or I) believe to be "truthful" is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. I assume it's your own original research, which is disallowed. Please read policy on verifiability - specifically, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.". We publish balanced summaries of what has been reported in reliable sources, and we summarise in the lead the most important elements of those reports. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Full protection

I have urged 5 albert square and Nakon to revert their ridiculously disproportionate full protection of this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear Sleepcovo's opinion, especially concerning my points above. He wanted a discussion but seems to have bailed out... for now at least. Stephenjh (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite. BLP doesn't apply here and there are plenty of RS. It's never been the case for historical figures that we depend on the conclusion of a court case to write a biography. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Stephenjh. The problem is that the dispute between yourself and the other editor over such a relatively inconsequential matter as whether those two individuals are named in the lead or not - they are named in the main text - provides no good basis for a call for full protection... and, in my view, no admin should have agreed to such a request. Full protection debars other editors from making any changes to the article - such as the naming of Enoch Powell in the scandal - which, frankly, are more important matters to be included. Stephenjh should have raised the possibility of seeking full protection here first, for comment by other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been unlocked following a request on my talk page. Please use the talk page to discuss any major changes to the article - don't edit war :)--5 albert square (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, so how do we move forward when one editor keeps reverting to their preferred version, doesn't support their deletions with any justification from Wiki MOS etc, demands others read his comments on the talk page and then disappears from the debate, and no one else seems to support his point of view? It is "inconsequential" to a degree, just persistent, biased, vandalism as far as I am concerned. Stephenjh (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you use the dispute resolution process. First step is to go to WP:DRN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there should be some discussion here first and the editor responsible has disappeared. I'd revert but, I might be violating 3R so soon after. Stephenjh (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this a little more, I don't see any strong reason to include Morrison and Fairbairn's names in the introductory paragraphs. There are many more politicians, dead and alive, whose names have been publicly mentioned as the subject of allegations - Greville Janner, Harvey Proctor, George Thomas, Leo Abse, Leon Brittan, Enoch Powell.. the list goes on. More names may be added in future, and some or all may be exonerated. I suggest adding a simple overview sentence: During 2014 and 2015, allegations against several other leading politicians of the period, mostly now deceased, were made public in the British press. References are not, I think, needed in the lede because they are covered in the main text, but they can be added if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well Sleepcovo's position was that they should all be named or none. However Sleepcovo selectively deleted only the Conservative politicians from the lede. That's the bias I indicated. I see no reason why they should not be included just as Cyril Smith is, the allegations against Morrison in particular are far more serious. The two names deleted were not simply Members of Parliament, but amongst the most 'highly placed' individuals within the Westminster system and alleged Westminster Paedophile rings. One being the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and the other a former Solicitor General for Scotland. Stephenjh (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle that it is better not to mention any of the names in the introduction. I also think the latest thing about Enoch Powell is so plainly absurd that, if we have to mention it at all, we should add to it something making clear that everybody regards the claim as preposterous. -- Alarics (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly not "everybody regards the claim as preposterous". Stephenjh (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Stephenjh. Where is the evidence that "everybody regards the claim as preposterous"? We should just report - briefly - the allegations published in reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Cyril Smith is included in the lead because it has been proven that he was a paedophile and did sexually abuse children. At the moment the other two: Morrison and Fairburn have only been accused and it is only speculation on whether or not they abused anyone! SleepCovo (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. Smith is included in the lead because he is known to have attended parties at the guest house. Nothing has been "proved" against him - and nothing will, because he's dead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyrtle. The argument is specious and the removal of the two names simply biased editing. These are two of the most senior politicians linked to the Westminster Paedophile Ring, the crimes alleged... rape and murder. Stephenjh (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect just because he is dead doesn't mean it can't be proven especially since there is documented proof that he was arrested for having child pornography etc, furthermore Jimmy Saville is also dead and yet the claims made against him have also been shown to be true. Stephenjh, your input into this discussion is really not needed as you keep going on about rape and murder, both of which have neither been proven. I suggest you find some factual information that you can use before you rejoin this section again. SleepCovo (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And you have failed to provide any valid argument or Wiki protocol to support the exclusion of these names from the article lede. I suggest you read the above discussion now you're here and respond to the relevant points. Stephenjh (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the claims against Savile have not "been shown to be true". There are a lot of allegations, so many that one may be inclined to think that at least some of them must be true, but nothing has actually been proved. -- Alarics (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Enoch Powell

The Church of England press statement on Enoch Powell makes clear that this allegation was passed on to police only because the C of E is required to do so. The allegations were not of criminal activity-- no mention of child abuse -- but "membership of satanic cults". The bishop responsible "was clear that he had no evidence relating to the allegations". In other words it is just meaningless tittle-tattle. It is interesting to note that The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph have not bothered to mention this story at all. Note also that Powell's biographer has said the allegations are "lies beyond contempt" and "a monstrous slur". -- Alarics (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The C of E statement should be included in the article, in the '2015 allegations' section in which Powell's name is raised. This is probably a better source than the Mail. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

DR/N Case

Hello! My name is Kharkiv07 and I've a volunteer moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I have recently taken on a case regarding this article, more specifically the inclusion of Morrison and Fairbairn. The discussion is here, and if you want to get involved please just reply to this message. Thanks! Kharkiv07^Talk 21:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Greville Janner

I have removed and reverted a passage which appeared to link the peer to this case. The two sources which had been used do not mention the Elm Guest House in connection with Janner which is normally a necessary requirement for the inclusion of the material. As yet no source online directly links him to this case, so Janner should not be mentioned here. Philip Cross (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried using "Lord Janner" in a string as well as "Greville Janner" and gained the same result. Philip Cross (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest this article is restricted to the Elm Guest House itself, and other material about the Metropolitan Police operations and prominent people accused of CSA criminal acts be moved to a new article or this article renamed and Elm Guest House turned into a redirect.

My original deletion was reverted on the grounds that the investigation of Janner was part of the whole investigation into child sex abuse. This is not quite right. The police operations mentioned here are being conducted by the Met, while Operation Enamel, the case prepared against Janner which has not led to a prosecution, was conducted by the Leicestershire Police. See Paragraph 3 of the CPS document for confirmation. Philip Cross (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue of whether this article should be renamed and/or subdivided several months ago, up above, and it was said then that we should keep it under review. Is it now the time for it to be looked at again? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this article has not been on my watchlist for a while. Clearly it looks like the question should be looked at again. Sorry Ghmyrtle if my edits gave you an edit conflict response from the software. Philip Cross (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be away for a couple of weeks, but I'm confident that this will all be sorted out smoothly and to everyone's satisfaction by the time I return.... (now extracting tongue from cheek). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Janner has now been linked to the Elm Guest House, and on his Wikipedia article too (by Philip Cross). So, can his name be added back here then? Stephenjh (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

One source so far has linked Janner directly to Operation Midland. No doubt enough to add +1,1000 bytes to this article as before. Philip Cross (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Exaro an allowed source on Wikipedia? I think this has been questioned before (personally I'm all for it)... just asking. Stephenjh (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Exaro is an acceptable source. They have been the definitive chroniclers of this scandal, and Exaro's stories are frequently picked up by other sources considered RS. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, it's just that (from memory) as a source here Exaro were questioned and I believe removed, either from this article or another my memory escapes me. Stephenjh (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah... top of the talk page here. Stephenjh (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Exaro is not an objective source. It has a POV, which is to believe that all allegations constitute evidence whether proven or not. -- Alarics (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean by proven? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Meaning proven beyond doubt, preferably in a court of law. Exaro doesn't seem to bother about the presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Wikipedia should not follow Exaro in that respect. -- Alarics (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We would be far behind contemporary journalistic standards if we only mentioned allegations following the conclusion of a court case. All other sources considered RS do so. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We should not mention allegations against a named person until respectable newspapers (not just Exaro) have done so, in my view. Even then it should be stressed that they are unproven and that people are innocent until proven guilty. -- Alarics (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Classified government files

I've been reading about documents which have been made classified until 2056 relating to a paedophilia case. (see here) It's unclear to me whether they relate to this case. Does anyone have info on that, and if so, should that be included in this article? Mcgrubso (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely no suggestion those files relate to EGH, and even if they did, they would need to be referenced via a reliably sourced publication or author. Submit an FOI request to the National Archives and then seek publication if they are newsworthy. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the advice. All I've found on it is this article (which is partly behind the Times' paywall) which suggests that the classified documents are related to the case of Colin Peters (who is closely linked to EGH) so I wondered if it was related. I guess the nature of classified documents is that we're not meant to know what's in them! Mcgrubso (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)