'Individual cases'?[edit]

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the content of the current 'Individual cases' section?

It isn't clear why intimate personal details of just these five, of the 700+ people involved in the scandal, have been highlighted this way. Without the context for this specific selection being explained and reliably sourced in the article, this is a WP:SYNTH selection and these individuals are being given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and attention at the expense of those not mentioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concur. These examples would be fine in a newspaper or magazine article but don't belong in the encyclopedia. -- Wire723 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed this section per the legitimate policy-based concerns raised here. If content from this section is to be included elsewhere in the main article text on a case-by-case basis (taking into account WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT as mentioned by DeFacto above) then that may be a better way forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both the original Computer Weekly article, the court case, and the current ITV drama focus in on a number of cases, and it is inevitable that these have therefore attracted most of the attention. The key is that the article fully conforms with BLP and privacy policies, and focuses on the scale and breadth of the scandal rather than getting too deeply into a handful of cases. Nevertheless some illustration of the personal stories behind the scandal with short summaries, using (only) information already widely published, would be useful for the reader, I suggest? MapReader (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should also remember that the the original Computer Weekly article was produced in the context of the true scale of the prosecutions not being known, coupled with the reluctance of some still-serving SPMs to go on the record. I do think, however, that it is entirely legitimate to highlight selected individual cases in order to clarify the experiences of the SPMs. We're not talking about hundreds of people wrongly being given out incorrect parking or speeding fines here, but rather the systematic destruction of lives in various different ways. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the arguments made to remove a large quantity of well-referenced text based on WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE are dubious and misuses of both policies. Editors are in danger of inventing their own policies.
I don't see how WP:SYNTH particularly applies. These are all clearly cases related to the overall article. We are not imputing or inferring anything extra, just noting what reliable sources say about these individual cases. WP:SYNTH starts Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. We are not doing that. There is no additional conclusion created here.
I don't think WP:UNDUE generally applies because we are following the reliable source reporting that has talked at length about these individual cases. WP:UNDUE talks about the views of tiny minorities and gives the example of flat earthers. We're not dealing with anything like that here. No-one is denying the experiences of these individual cases. If a case can be made that individual examples are WP:UNDUE, they can be removed on an individual basis, but a blanket argument is unconvincing.
There is no Wikipedia policy that I am aware of that says example cases, when well supported by reliable sources, should not be given.
DeFacto expresses a concern about those not mentioned. If there is RS-supported content about others, then they can be added. That's not a reason to remove content already here (WP:WIP applies). I highly doubt that individuals affected by this scandal are going to be up in arms that they haven't been mentioned in a Wikipedia article. I suspect they would be happier that we are giving real examples, rather than chopping the article to hide these discussions of how the scandal affected people! There is no policy-based argument that says we can only give examples if we mention all 700+ victims. Bondegezou (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bondegezou, I disagree. The selection implies that these are typical examples. Without cites to sources presenting these specific examples in a similar context, and as as typical examples, we are falling foul of WP:SYNTH. That these individual cases are covered in separate sources does not give them due weight when combined into this single context as none of them individually have due weight.
Cases presented as typical examples in our article need to be supported by sources discussing the scandal and providing these specific cases as their typical examples too. Otherwise we are performing OR/SYNTH in grouping them as typical examples. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DeFacto The text nowhere claimed these are typical examples. Your argument makes no sense. Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bondegezou, if they are not being given as typical examples, what are they being given as? A random bunch of context-free cases, cherry-picked from 'reliable sources', has no place in an encyclopaedic article. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are individual cases that reliable sources have talked about; ergo, so should we. (Why are you putting reliable sources in scare quotes?) Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to remember that the news media, even those accepted by Wikipedia as 'reliable sources', will be trawling their contacts, social media, moles, whistle-blowers, etc., to find the cases most likely to trigger public uproar and maximise indignation, so are not a good source for plucking typical examples from. That is why the context behind the selection of examples is important and why a list compiled this way conflicts with WP:SYNTH. We need a list that is sourced as a whole list (or lists selected as whole lists) and with which there is the context for selection given. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to be re-writing what we define as reliable sources. As to reliable sources providing "whole lists", do you mean like these: [1], [2]? Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am rather surprised at the line of argument that seems to be pursued here, i.e. that we have to provide evidence that the individual cases are "typical." As I said above, this scandal has detrimentally affected a great number of individuals in various different ways. The Post Office chose to pursue different cases differently, even cases that ostensibly seem similar. Alan Bates was forced out, but not prosecuted or sued; Lee Castleton was sued, while others faced criminal prosecutions; Martin Griffiths and three others committed suicide. Individual circumstances varied widely. "Typical" did not and does not exist, and the previously included individual cases were not presented as such, but rather reflected the range of experiences. We should be building on that, not gaming the system to remove them for no rational reason. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an issue that youn don't just report and then archive. It is an issue that serves as a warning how NOT to do things. It is therefore very appropriate to see some individual cases to illustrate what wrongdoing does to people.
It is about blind trust in computer generated data, and 'I could not prove it", which my friend said when 64,000 AUD vanished in some computer transaction. We, the users cannot prove anything computers do; hiring experts costs too much, while the software vendors always get their money. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:888A:D5B2:E574:757 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those new to this discussion, this is the key edit. Should that content have been left or removed? Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They should have been left (better late than never eh) Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have sought more input on the interpretation of WP:SYNTH from the relevant noticeboard at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Post_Office_scandal. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That hasn't attracted any apparent attention yet, perhaps we need an RfC to help reach a sound policy-based consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviewing practice elsewhere on Wikipedia, I note similar sections on individual cases, seemingly written in a similar way, exist in the following articles: Focus E15, Same-sex marriage in Brazil, Concordia College and University, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Victoria, Political abuse of psychiatry in Russia, Aboriginal deaths in custody, Anti-gay purges in Chechnya, ShotSpotter, and Cases of political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Again, I don't see any policy objection to such content. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the person who deleted the information, I have no objection to it being re-inserted, especially as it seems most editors support inclusion. Just thought we should have consensus on the talk page before this information is added to avoid any edit-warring. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You weren't the first person to delete it, and I'm still not convinced that we have a policy-based consensus that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I re-inserted the material, GnocchiFan, but DeFacto re-removed it.
Can I get a show of hands? Does anyone else still agree with DeFacto’s position? Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree to the extent that the section as it is does not add anything useful to the article. How does a sentence such as "Noel Thomas, a man who had worked for the Royal Mail for 42 years, went to prison as a result of the errors" add anything, when the article has already said that people went to prison? If they must be mentioned I think it would be better to do so in the text of the article, rather than listing in a separate section. For example those cases that are featured in the recent TV drama could be discussed in the dramatisation section. Southdevonian (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it would enhance the article is you added under the dramatisation section some of the examples they highlighted. These actors and the people they represent are happy with the publicity and the article could do with examples of the social impact of the issue on these ordinary people, to explain, the dramatisation selected a few cases as representations, Noel Thomas, Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton and Martin Griffiths. If they consider them typical and cover most aspects of the case, I see no reason why we cannot do the same. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support @Ânes-pur-sàng's and @Southdevonian's suggestion as the examples would be those selected for the TV dramatisation, and that context would make their selection WP:SYNTH compliant. -- DeFacto (talk). -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ânes-pur-sàng, all the cases previously named had, as far as I can see, agreed to talk to the media concerned and had done so to publicise the issues. I am unclear why only the ones featured in a drama should then be mentioned…?
DeFacto, I remain unclear how you think any of the text at WP:SYNTH applies here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The mention of the drama does not enhance the article by much, but by adding an explanation of the four main cases, it will add a personal aspect that I find is missing and explain that the drama is based on real people, not pure fiction. Try it, then we can see if there are any other cases that are so different that they warrant a mention and whether it is a reasonably balanced group. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about a section with the title "Victims" - brief introduction and then details of some people explaining why they are highlighted, for example "X gave an interview to the BBC in which they recounted how they went to prison/were bankrupted..." "Y, who featured in the TV drama..."? Southdevonian (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am, to be honest, confused how this would be differ substantially from the section that was removed and which, upthread, you said "does not add anything useful to the article"? Could you or Ânes-pur-sàng try an edit, or flesh out further what you mean? Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adam Crozier[edit]

Shouldn't Adam Crozier be mentioned (other than as currently in the title of a source) in the article? Our article on him has a paragraph about the scandal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To include a mention of Adam Crozier, there needs to be something relevant about Crozier to include. He is not generally mentioned in any of the journalism on the subject, as no actual involvement or link to him directly has yet been identified (his position as overarching group CEO of Royal Mail Group during the early part of the narrative doesn't mean he had knowledge or was an actor in any way in these events, unlike, say Paula Vennells was later). That would leave any mention in the "Well he should have known!" category (which is what the comment in his own article basically is, which isn't really fact-based encyclopedic content. It may be that information will come out of the inquiry that will change this, however. Mauls (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structural issues and general format unsuitability[edit]

To combine the majority of the discussions at this talkpage, there are clear issues with how this article presents the information. A large part of the problems stem from the fact that the "British Post Office scandal" has quite a large scope. The article covers: the issues with the Post Office/Horizon system; the legal cases convicting sub-postmasters and other punishments they faced; the resulting legal fight by the sub-postmasters; the Post Office cover-up; the public scandal when the various aforementioned information became news. The article does not particularly well cover the actual scandal, aftermath of legal cases, and the human impact, but one would imagine they are in scope. That's a lot of different things, each of which are typically handled slightly differently in how the articles on them are written.

One solution would be to split the article. It goes into particular depth on legal cases, which are in increasingly-confusingly-layered subsections and written as overall articles of legal cases seem to be. Those could be split and given summaries here, in prose more conventional to event articles - which would also reduce the length.

I have some experience contributing to articles that deal with a mix of related events, legal cases, scandals (e.g. David Whiting, Rubiales affair), so I know it's possible to get it all into one in a more readable fashion than this article currently stands as.

In hoping not to need a split discussion or RfC, I have some ideas on improvements, for your discussion: Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split out Court cases

Besides being in their own hard-to-parse format, these subsections present a mix of Post Office going after sub-postmasters in court, and vice versa, kind of mixed in together. This makes understanding the situation more difficult. Splits could be to one article for the Post Office going after people (Court cases brought by the British Post Office against sub-postmasters - titles do not have to be short) or in various articles for each case that passes relevant notability criteria. The cases by Bates and others brought against the Post Office should be handled separately: I think Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd is more than suitable for its own article, while the others may be best put together in an article about Hamilton & Others and Post Office Ltd featuring the 2019 civil appeals as Background. I note that Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3) already exists, but does not seem to be in-line mentioned anywhere in this article. That's, really, so bad. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a start I have removed the lists of cases cited, which were not necessary. If anyone wants to know what cases were cited they can look at the judgments. If anyone wants to create a "List of cases cited in Post Office court cases" article they can do so. Southdevonian (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rewrite the lead

The lead/lede starts of decently - though reducing everything to just the miscarriage of justice is non-indicative of the scope - but then gives a prose timeline (leads should prioritise relevance, not chronology) that also manages to highlight some of the most irrelevant details of the whole scenario. Why is the DSS one of the first things mentioned when it is barely a footnote in the background of the system that provoked the main issue, for the first example. We should better label the scope in the opening paragraph. And we should discuss to identify the most important and relevant parts of the whole thing to summarise in the lead. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-work the Horizon IT system section

Another confusing layer of sub-sections is that the mediation scheme, while provoked by the system causing the Post Office to act badly, is not part of the Horizon system. Why is it under here? The Second Sight reports are also more about how the Post Office was effectively ignoring the problems, at least how the subsection makes it sound, not about the system itself. Should that be under here? But the main issue is that this section is written like its own article. It has an intro to what the system is and its development (not directly relevant), then various long summaries of the issues and reports, before we even get to the first subsection. Perhaps it would be simplest to split this whole section out to a Horizon (IT system) article, but then there are those questions of what belongs as subsections. Decisions about what information belongs where is needed, to resolve the excessive detail that in parts looks like a promotion for the system, as well as the attempts at presenting a chronology that is weak due to repetition and lack "cause and effect". Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it worth adding discussion of how Horizon caused the accounting issues? I'm looking for a source that meets appropriate thresholds. That might belong here, at least in brief.
I'd suggest that Horizon (as a blanket label for Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online, HNG-X and HNG-A) merits a page on its own. The Judgment in Alan Bates and Others and Post Office Limited ([2019] EWHC 3408 (QB)) is an intimidating document, but Appendix 2 lists 29 separate bugs that had different impacts on the reliability of the system. The processes by which Horizon failed are discussed in a few blogs but as yet I've not found anything that spells out what was intended and what actually happened on the ground. The Therac-25 is a reasonable prototype for explaining software faults and a few lines here and a Horizon (IT system) page there could cover the rest. I would argue that having one's own judicial inquiry [3]https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ probably meets the notability threshold. C37H67NO13 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The information would probably belong in detail at a standalone and in brief at this article, where its presence aids understanding of the topic. Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rework the timeline

The timeline should ideally be a chronological series of events, but the various paragraphs tend to focus on topics. While paragraphs here usually start with a date, they give information that spans different periods. It may be better to remove stuff which doesn't serve the narrative, e.g. information on the corporate history of ICL / Fujitsu, or the structure of Royal Mail. Chumpih t 06:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have looked at the timeline and maybe the context deserves a little mention. The system was implemented in 1999, still early time for the Blair government. Soon came 911 (in 2001) with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to follow quickly. Everybody was distracted. Nobody had time for the complaints by post office subcontractors who could jeopardize the benefits of semi-privatisation. Worse still, the affected subcontractors could not prove anything, because when computers cough up results - that's it - no discussion is possible because the data are only accessible to experts.

It should be allowed to take notice of where trouble lies with these computer systems so problems like this Post Office/Horizon scandal can be nipped in the bud early, not years down the track with so many victims. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:54FD:CA4C:D6E:E4D4 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is very perceptive; current press reports of a) the scandal beginning before Hosizon, b) the aiding and abetting role of Fujitsu, and c) the government's pre 'Bates case' knowledge of the computer faults. Having studied this scandal closely from before Wikipedia itself was created I had hoped, after the ITV television production, that other editors would shape the page to cover the scandal as we currently know it. 'Timeline' has been discussed in two separate sections, Rework the timeline and Timeline. It has been mentioned 30+ times across the Talk page, most difficult to follow, particularly if a mobile device is used, in discussions that appear to have caused one or some to conclude that it should be removed. There a now only link to a Post Office publication on that name. A bit droll? Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
discussions that appear to have caused one or some to conclude that it should be removed - no, people think it should be removed because timelines are not considered stylistically helpful in most cases, as a general rule on English Wikipedia. It was most likely edited by people with less experience editing within the area who thought it would be helpful. Maybe, when the article has been properly shaped, some kind of outline will be thought to have use. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kingsif (talk)Thank you. I appreciate your comment very much. I particularly wanted to respond to the comment from 2001:8003:A070:7F00:54FD:CA4C:D6E:E4D4 for 2 reasons. The first because, as I said, it was perceptive. The second reason was because they seemed not to have realised that it had been taken out and I thought it helpful to show that the way the discussion had occurred unconnectedly was difficult to follow. On reading that editor's comment again I think that perhaps they weren't talking about the Timeline (as a headed section) as you are (?) and I was. I now think it referred to the development, the progress of the events, the scandal over time. I am not particularly concerned about the removal of the Timeline but I am very concerned about the simple removal of material and references with little apparent understanding their place in the chain of events. In essence my view is that there needed and still needs to be good skilled precise as a prelude to thoughtful removal. I don't believe that is happening. With respect, I know this to be a scandal that began 20+ years ago, became known very slowly because of continued managerial coverup and that it is, forgive the laboured point, continuing suffer from unethical and possibly unlawful coverup. That editor's 3 Feb comment was insightful and prescient. Jacksoncowes (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, when I saw the IP comment, I thought very little of it and that's why I didn't address it. It verges, if not outright crosses into, WP:FORUM. They haven't really mentioned anything that needs editing or improving, just wrote a collection of thoughts on their view of context. Unless they want to suggest "add context of what society was like X years ago" and provide some sources where, as an example, the government outright says "we were distracted from looking into it because Blair was new and 9/11" (and I personally think the comment is the opposite of insightful, taking an amateur historian view that looks at one big obvious thing without considering that not every government department is focused on war and there are civil servants who exist just to check every bit of paper, etc). Historians can make qualified judgments of what factors affect events, but if we put such speculation into a Wikipedia article it's going to be called out for OR. Introducing background context without crossing that line is delicate and difficult. This is why background sections, where they exist, and not context dumps. I wrote much of the Hamraoui case article and while the background could go into race relations in Paris and the history of PSG and everything, it has much more immediate context and is simple factual statements without suggesting analysis.
Perhaps worse still with the IP comment above, having just re-read it, is that it almost sounds like the IP is advocating a view of "because of [context], you can't blame anything but the computers for the scandal" and it would be massively inappropriate to be adding context to imply such a thing. And dismissing the subpostmasters' complaints as something not worth bothering with, and that were dangerous to the semi-privatisation? Well. Kingsif (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your reply led me to Hamraoui case and to Scandal and a few other pages, so thank you. Scandal is well defined "as the strong social reactions of outrage, anger, or surprise, when accusations or rumours circulate or appear for some reason, regarding a person or persons who are perceived to have transgressed in some way a social norm." The social and political background of this scandal involves some of the most powerful people and institutions in this country. To leave out what you imply should be left out doesn't cut the mustard. You referr me to an article covering a small number of people over a short period of two or three years. Could it be that it is rated Start-class because it lacks what you think it shouldn't have in it. I had intended to reply saying that I did know what you meant by the the IP comment above. However, I do now and have read your reply. That potential tyro editor is obviously fully aware of the scandal in real terms. The etiquette of 'do not bite' should have been exercised. Above you quoted me in green saying '...have caused one or some to conclude that it should be removed.' and you replied, no, people think .... Some people? All the people? X number of people? Do you really believe you speak for all? In an earlier entry you threatened to read up on this scandal before taking your angle grinder to the article. I am well able to take flippant comments lightly but I really do urge you to be serious in your threat to read up on the issue and to lighten up on good faith comments from knowledgeable non regular editors. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I referred you to an article I have first-hand experience with to give you an idea of how, when background sections exist, the items are related to the topic, i.e. it's not throwing all of history in. I'm sure you could find that in other articles, be it scandals or wars or whatever, but that is one I know. I wasn't trying to say it was comparable, and your jump to assuming that the article is bad (and apparently trying to find justification for that in a rating that was given when it was first created), rather than taking from it the kind of context depth, is strange to me.
I do know what a scandal is and have explicitly advocated multiple times at this talkpage for making the article more focused on that than varying droll law speak. Such information, in case you're somehow thinking my comment about appropriate background means I don't want the scandal covered even though that hasn't been mentioned in this thread at all, would not belong in a background section or a timeline section. I don't know what you think my comment was about with the attitude you've taken, and I suggest re-reading it with good faith, because that's how I wrote it.
Yes, I think the IP editor is trying to have a chat about their view of the subject, rather than discussing what editing needs to be done with the article. That's not bitey. If anyone is biting, it's your comment right here.
And yeah, I am shocked at how your attitude has turned to somewhat combative, by the way. Re. the previous comment, you had said you believed it was difficult-to-follow discussions at this talkpage that caused people to think a timeline section should be deleted; I corrected you based on having read the arguments given by the people at this talkpage for why they thought a timeline section should be deleted. I do not speak for everyone, but I can read what they say and tell you. And in response to you seeming to speak for others, BTW.
In an earlier entry you threatened to read up on this scandal - and what is that supposed to mean. Threats? Flippant? I am going to assume that you're just being hyperbolic, which is probably inadvisable with your previous interrogatory tone, but sure. I have been looking into it more. I also have other things going on. I know enough about the topic to know I don't know enough to comprehensively edit the article, so that's where we're at.
Your last suggestion seems, well, again, go back and read my comment with good faith. I wasn't being heavy. This comment here, too, is made in good faith even though you've been uncivil. So yeah, in the nicest way, back at you. I urge you to lighten up on good faith comments from me.
Look, I replied because I got a notification - I don't know if you or the IP hit the reply button after my comment or what - and I felt the need to correct your assumption that it was the manner of talkpage discussion that had made people want to delete an inappropriate section. Of course, my multi-sectioned ...section here was intended to centralise discussion and it clearly hasn't worked, so I do sympathise with your struggles to navigate. That I didn't think it worth replying to the IP, and you take issue with that? Well, this is definitely off-topic now, so feel welcome to continue this at my talkpage instead. Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please allow me a few remarks en passant. 1. The article you referred me to. I don't assume it is bad and I have no desire to or intention of accessing its goodness or badness or in any way other than to say it is a poor exemplar of what should be left in or taken out of this article; it did the opposite of supporting your earlier reply to me (IMO). 2. You misquote me by truncation, chopping off the angle grinder. You had said I might have to read up on the scandal and just take an angle-grinder to the article myself to make it at least readable. So yes threat. Flippant was more litotes than hyperbole, an attempt to downplay its inappropriateness of the angle grinder part but to leave the read up part.. 3. Let me now say you would be right to criticise me for elevating the status of the 'IP editor'; I should have said pupa rather than potential tyro. That bombast is just to lead to me saying respectfully to you, yes, I did bite, but you are very obviously not a tyro. I reacted to what I regarded as a breach of etiquette and I feel not need to say more.
I have found your edits to this page thoughtful, interesting and valuable. I had avoided what I knew to be contentious in my reply to the IP editor. I said caused one or some ..... You corrected me saying, to my mind imperiously, no, people think ..... implying that consensus had been reached but giving no form of number, amount or stated rational. I don't think it had. Don't let us now put each other to proof, my only point was that it needed to be asserted more properly. All of this brings me to what I really want to propound. It is a meant as reply to you as part of the interested commentary you have been conducting here generally. As the public interest in the scandal diminished, after the initial inquiry started, so did the RSs. It became difficult to find an appropriate place on the page to locate what was reported and needed to be in. Important stuff got 'parked'. The page increasingly needed reshaping;, pieces summarised and appropriately positioned under existing and new headings. That is so different to reduction. I would not dream of patronising you by presuming you don't know that. But I do say that simple reduction without sufficient knowledge and comprehension is what has been happening. Further, and at least as important is getting the important current stuff in. In spite of the increasing amount of RS material since November, and the current torrent, very little has been edited in but lots thrown out without due care. You are wise to say, I know enough about the topic to know I don't know enough to comprehensively edit the article... , that's true of most of us. The culture that has developed here is not conducive to good collaborative editing.. The apparent dominant ethos (IMO), encouraged by overblown disparagement, is that the scandal is over, the page needs shortening, and then there will be room to put in what the Inquiry finds when it finishes. The only ethos? No. All the editors and edits? No. But there has been ignoring, swatting away views, over rapid and too many reversions. On my current computer, the article history page of about 50 edits, there are about 20 reversions. I have done and will again congratulate good editing, encourage those here to stay and other to return or to come in. Currently, contributing to editing is not for the faint hearted. The article is in no more nor less of a mess than it was at 3 January, it is just in a different mess.. The scandal is in full flood, is intensifying, is full of intrigue and cover-up by powerful forces working hard to protect themselves. I know well it is not Wiki's role to investigate, to side, etc, etc and many more etceteras. It is far from over. The inquiry is due to end in November(?) to report - who knows. There is a general election in the offing. The IP was right to be concerned about brooms and carpets. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, based on revisiting the Hamraoui case article myself (and seeing that the case has developed further based on additions to Marie-Antoinette Katoto), I have decided to work on improving that article. So, thanks for prompting that. Second, while I see where you're coming from with the word "threat", I think it's an extreme interpretation and unwarranted. The intended purpose of an angle grinder is to polish the edges, remember - but even if I had said "hacksaw", I would hope any editor reading in good faith would just understand it as a colourful way of saying "I might make some big WP:Bold edits". Of course, in the past I often used figurative language in talk page discussions and there's quite a number of editors who don't get it, apparently confusing people, which I don't want to do and is why I've tried to write more directly (unfortunately leading to being interpreted as blunt, sigh). Last, thank you for your further reflections on the state of the article. I don't disagree. Of course, I won't be touching until I feel certain I'm not going to be adding to the mess. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get it. I really do prefer edits to disregard, mess is easily mopped. Jacksoncowes (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It also ends in 2021. Should it also be retitled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An alternative would be to rewrite the intro, incorporating some of the timeline text. I think a long and complex article like this can support a longer intro. Also there are now some good sources that give an overview of the subject, rather than using so many different sources in the intro. I actually prefer intros without refs (everything referenced in the text) but the manual of style says either way is fine - intros with or without refs. Southdevonian (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remembering of course, that, per WP:LEAD, the lead (intro) should only summarise the most important points already made in the article body, and as it should not contain anything that needs sourcing, should not generally need sources in it. I think they should be avoided as they add unnecessary clutter. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly I didn't mention anything to do with that section because I figured we'd just delete it when we knew all relevant information was in the article. As an overview that was renamed to timeline, it doesn't belong at all. Just need to make sure the lead is good. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair point. There are a few well-cited points in this section that don't appear elsewhere in the article - the citations themselves could be considered valuable. But unless we have a chronology befitting the title Timeline, this section is just a mess that should go. Chumpih t 05:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consolidate article focus

As has been mentioned in other discussions, this article has a lot of intricate information about computers and court cases, but none of that conveys why it became a scandal. If the main point of this article is a scandal as the name suggests, why is any information about that shuffled into Reactions and Aftermath sections, rather than being the main focus. The inquiries and investigations into the Post Office aren't merely reactions. I don't know when the article was created, but it seems that it likely began life as an article on the Post Office taking sub-postmasters to court and everything that has come out since has been poorly tacked-on. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The scandal lies in the various cover ups and that the people would not be believed. Plus, the people were put into a very bad situation, ruining lives in many instances. People were treated with contempt and the scandal is that it was done over a long period of time with no understanding that there was wrongdoing.
The article reflects a complex matter, and so it is complex. If someone can think of splitting the article in more digestible shorter articles, maybe thst could be a way. Or you could say, you list the events, issues, and legal matters separately from the victims. Have a separate page for 'people harmed by the Post Office Matters'? One of the aspects now is of course to ensure the wrongdoing is not swept under the carpet - because we need to learn. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:C4B4:E90A:A798:FC82 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being complex does not necessitate an article being unfocused and rambling. The complexity is indeed why focus and coherence must be prioritised. Two other things: add new comments at the bottom of a discussion rather than splitting up other replies; and do not add comments just to chat about the topic. Further disruptive replies will be removed. Kingsif (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article was started in draft in March 2015 and published, pretty, much unchanged, in July 2016 (looking like this), when the short lede was mostly comprised of:

Horizon is the name for a computer system used by part of the United Kingdom's postal service, Post Office Ltd. It has come under criticism since at least 2013 for errors in the system which, according to press reports, may have caused the loss of dozens of jobs, unnecessary prison sentences, bankruptcies and one documented suicide.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was originally called Horizon (IT system) and only switched to Post Office scandal in June 2021. Southdevonian (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the scandal should have been a new article rather than Frankenstein-ing this together. At least we know why it is such a mess. Realistically we have two options: discussion about good content for inclusion and how it should be written, or a few users BOLDly making many large changes and hoping it turns out better. There isn't a time limit on improving articles, but with the massive uptick in pageviews it would be nice to get this in shape. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add more encyclopedic information about the human impact and similar

We are an encyclopedia, and some people seem to think that means we must be cold and only present the boring "X happened then Y happened". Encyclopedias have always had a duty to convey how events were experienced - how people during and after reacted to what happened, not just what happened. That's another issue with the Reactions section... it's just other stuff that happened. Besides this, there is a serious lack of information about what happened... to the sub-postmasters despite that being half the reason there's a scandal (Post Office doing such a thing to them being the other half) - we obviously cannot cover everyone, and per a discussion above it looks like there used to be lengthy sections on certain individual sub-postmasters, which is also not appropriate. An overview, though, seems necessary. And it's probably what a lot of readers are looking for, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could achieve that by restoring the Individual cases section that was in the article for 7+ years, but removed last month. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time to drop that stick, perhaps? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To sum it up, we could probably say that an encyclopedia is about facts, unadulterated, unbiased, and complete. But what is the good of facts if there is no learning experience? Some selected stories of individual cases facilitate the learning experience from this extraordinary scandal on steroids. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:446C:7C5A:AEEB:32F9 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a cohesive voice

It also seems evident that this article was written by a mix of editors from the legal cases sphere, and what I would say were relatively inexperienced editors - writing things in short chronology paragraphs and shoving every new development into Reactions, unsure of a format to suit the article. This also means that the style of writing shifts considerably from section to section, which makes it more of a slog if a reader is going through the whole thing top to bottom. I think this issue still warrants discussion but has a simpler solution: we could ask WP:GOCE to run through it as a priority. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to put a bit of structure in the Horizon section and alter some of the headings, but then realised that there was now a mediation and compensation section and then another compensation section so it probably didn't help much.
I agree that, because of the history of the article, the Horizon section is too prominent and the inquiry etc should not be added on as a reaction but be given more weight. What is the actual scandal? The prosecution of innocent people because the Post Office wouldn't admit that they had a software problem? Plus the time it has taken to try and put it right?
How about looking at it in a different way? Say you had a blank screen - how would you organise the article?
I think I would go for a roughly chronological approach:
Background section covering the rolling out of Horizon and maybe the Second Sight Reports
Prosecutions
JFSA and civil action
Appeals
Inquiry
Media coverage Southdevonian (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling of sub-postmasters / subpostmasters / SubPostmasters[edit]

This article hyphenates "sub-postmasters", but Post Office Limited#Services does not. Which is correct?

We should explain briefly and early in this article that sub-postmasters are self-employed, and run sub-post offices under contract to Post Office Ltd. But where? Perhaps a "background" section, right after the lede? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re the spelling; the OED only recognises the hyphenated spelling. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet National Federation of SubPostmasters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think a hyphen is the biggest problem with the article! I did look it up somewhere before I hyphenated them all for consistency but I cannot remember where. How about a footnote for the bit about being under contract to the Post Office? Southdevonian (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every issue but one is not "the biggest problem with the article"; that doesn't mean we can't address them in parallel``.
I don't think such a significant point as what a sub-postmaster is should be relegated to a footnote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The BBC uses a hyphen. I think that consistency is good idea, which ever is used. Southdevonian (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BBC is however a secondary source. It’s a word invented and used by the PO (originally GPO) and they don’t hyphenate. MapReader (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not fussed either way but I am not going to change them all! Meanwhile I have put in something about self-employed status. How about a background section replacing the Horizon section? It could incorporate some of the Horizon section, but I don't think all the article needs quite so much about Horizon - it seems to be a leftover from the time when the article was called Horizon. Southdevonian (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I suggest BOLDly splitting the Horizon stuff out. A background section in the scandal about what sub-postmasters are, and presumably about the law change that took a computer's word for it unless proven otherwise, is probably needed. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said I don't mind whether it has a hyphen or not. But if anyone wants to change it, please could they do so throughout the article - for consistency. Southdevonian (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hyphens removed in this set of edits. I believe I have caught all the exceptions (URLs, citation titles, quotes), but please check. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that mass change from "sub-postmaster" to "subpostmaster" was premature, especially given that there are other articles where the same issue has occurred. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started a discussion on this at Talk:National Federation of SubPostmasters#Spelling, but maybe it should all be centralised here.

There I wrote that the title of that article, "National Federation of SubPostmasters", is a proper name, not a simple description in English. For that reason, I cannot see why we would abandon the standard OED English spelling of sub-postmaster, in favour of "subpostmaster" in the article prose. Why not use "SubPostmaster" if the clue is in the title?

Let's look how some of the popularly used reliable source media spell the occupation of the members of the federation, articles in which they also refer to the federation by its full proper name as in this article title:

Based on the OED and this quick review of sources, I propose using "sub-postmaster" throughout, per those reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term originated with, and is particular to, the Post Office, and they don’t hyphenate. That other forms exist elsewhere doesn’t change how the title is supposed to be spelled. MapReader (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MapReader, given that there is a standard English spelling for the term, and it is defined as "the person in charge of a sub-post office", which is what we are using it to mean, why do you think should we choose to follow the Post Office's style rather the established standard English style - especially as most of the media outlets that we rank as 'reliable', and commonly use for sources, also generally use the standard English style? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first isn't a meaningful comparator, though, as the hyphen is there because you could hardly attach sub to the first of two words: "subpost office" is clearly a bad formulation. Whereas subpostmaster is of a similar grammatical formulation to subhuman, submarine, subdivide, substation,.... These are all words that have become familiar in their non-hyphenated form, such that the hyphen isn't needed for its original reason of separating words that would be confused run together. There isn't any ambiguity with the term "subpostmaster" that needs a hypen for clarity. The reason we should follow the Post Office style is that it's their proprietary word; there aren't any other social contexts nor other organisations that use the term (beyond secondary refereces to post offices themselves). MapReader (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't talking about the spelling of "sub-post office" though, I was referring to the dictionary entry for sub-postmaster, which shows how it is spelt in English, and which confirms that that has exactly the meaning we are using it for, which is "the person in charge of a sub-post office". This spelling use is confirmed by the prevalence of its use in the RSes. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reference this long standing article on WP: National Federation of SubPostmasters MapReader (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You keep referring to "English" spelling, as though this was an ENGVAR issue. "subpostmaster" is every bit as English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm not looking outside of standard British English, for which OED is the recognised authority. OED's first recorded use of "sub-postmaster" is in 1671. It doesn't document "subpostmaster". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your statistics are flawed; the BBC frequently use "subpostmaster", for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Google search is flawed - none of the first 10 of the results of that search used "subpostmaster", they all only used "sub-postmaster". So that reinforces my argument. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh. The search was https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2F+%22subpostmaster%22 - with quotes. I mangled it trying to get MediaWiki to display the link properly. My point stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you test the results for that one? For me, 5 of the first 10 results contain "sub-postmaster", but not "subpostmaster", 3 contain "subpostmaster", but not "sub-postmaster", and 2 contain both spellings. So I'd say that favours my argument too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point was that - far from the zero you implied above - "the BBC frequently use 'subpostmaster'". Do you dispute that they do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't imply zero, I even showed examples of it, including from The Guardian which seems to use it exclusively. What I hope I did show though, was that even in sources where the proper name "National Federation of SubPostmasters" is used (with that hyphen-free spelling), "sub-postmaster" is most commonly spelt with a hyphen by most of the RS news media sources. What I also showed was that OED, the recognised authority on English, covered only the spelling with the hyphen.
What is your rationale for adopting the less widespread and non-OED spelling? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You literally wrote "BBC News: "sub-postmaster" 5-0 "subpostmaster"". You have shown that the Oxford Learners Dictionary, a much reduced subset of the OED, uses it. The rationale is set out in the conversation above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I was only looking at articles which mentioned "National Federation of SubPostmasters" and "subpostmaster" or "sub-postmaster" - to show that it is more common to mix the two spellings that way than, as you suggested to follow the spelling that the NFSP chose.
I linked Oxford Learners for the definition as it is free-access (and the OED needs an account) and the definitions are the same in both, the usage data are from the OED here for sub-postmaster and here for subpostmaster (which has none).
I don't see any rationale above other than 'because it's spelt that way in the name of the National Federation of SubPostmasters and within that article', and which I've shown is not an impediment to using the standard English (per OED) spelling for the reliable sources, and described why spellings usd in proper names are not necessarily desirable outside of them. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked in OED (free via library) and it says this for sub-postmaster
1671 Upon this Grand Office depends One hundred eighty two Deputy Post-Masters..and Sub Post-Masters in their Branches. (E. Chamberlayne Angliæ Notitia)
1896 A number of messengers..employed by Sub-Postmasters. (Hansard)
2004 My stepfather the sub-postmaster..allowed villagers pleading poverty to get their stamps on tick. (Independent)
If you search for subpostmaster it just goes to sub-postmaster. Southdevonian (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as I said above, OED, the recognised authority on English, covered only the spelling with the hyphen and that the first recorded use of "sub-postmaster" is in 1671. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spellings and formats on WP aren’t decided by Google search counts, regardless of whether your figures are accurate, or - as suggested - not so accurate. MapReader (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I fully agree with that. How do you think we should decide which spelling to use? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Toss a coin? With a footnote explaining the alternative? Southdevonian (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good idea(!) I did, and it was heads, so we use the hyphen. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 22:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally for terms that are specific to a certain domain, we use the terminology from that domain. Off the top of my head, an example might be Olympic football, which is referred to in articles about the Olympics as “football” despite most Americans and US publications - which would dominate any Google search - calling it soccer. We use the official term as per the IOC. As I said above, the only context in which the term “subpostmaster” is used is in relation to the Post Office’s SPSOs - it’s not a generic term and doesn’t refer to anything else - and so we should treat the Post Office usage as definitive. MapReader (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could look at the Google Ngram for the two spellings over the period in question too: here. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or search British Newspaper Archives] for the two spellings, which gives the following hit counts:
  • "sub-postmster": 293,88 (1700-2024)
  • "subpostmaster": 78,354 (1800-2024)
-- DeFacto (talk). 23:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

During my working life, there was a General Post Office, and a [Postmaster General]] (eg John Stonehouse) The Postmaster General was, a bit as Stonehouse later pretended, done away with (1969). There were many postmasters and many subordinate sub-postmasters. All were civil servants, 'signed' the Official Secrets Act, had pensions etc. and, as Royal Mail gradually reorganised and privatised, sold its properties, these posts were done away with. I can imagine that there was some overlap; that some sub-postmasters were still in post as the new, self-employed contractually created Subpostmasters arrived. This article is not about sub-postmasters, it is about subpostmasters. As sub-postmaster had been around since 1600 it is hardly surprising it drips off the tongue and pen so easily. The then Mr Justice Fraser, now Lord Justice Fraser, had to study the subpostmasters' contracts. Unsurprisingly, he got it right.Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So Peter Fraser contractually removed the hyphen? I see you've given us four with hyphens and two without. And one with a big P. I'm historically confused. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really did not mean that and it is a puzzle to me that it could be read in that way. I must apologise for confusing you. Because Fraser went through the Post Office/Subpostmaster contract line by line analysing them he will have read subpostmaster again and again. My major point was to show that they are two different words with different meanings. My little piece is in line with .MapReader (talk) Further, I wasn't talking about capitalisation. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I buy the 'two different words' suggestion. The fact remains that this isn't a generic term, used in a variety of contexts, like "nurse" or "train driver", where the fact that one particular employer might call the latter "railway engineers" would be a peculiarity. Subpostmasters only exist, and have only ever existed, in relation to the GPO and its successor organisations, who created them, and if they tell us the word is "subpostmaster" and use that formulation in the contracts that establish the position and in their communications, then that's clearly the correct spelling. That the two organisations created and run by subpostmasters do the same is an important additional consideration. MapReader (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subpostmasters never existed in relation to the the GPO, which now does not exist. Sub-postmasters did in relation to the GPO and then to the The Post Office, which was also on the way out. Sub-postmasters were phased out when postmasters were phased out. My main point is the phasing out. The people who were to be awarded contracts to run the sub-post offices as self-employed operatives could not be called sub-postmasters because post office employees, sub-postmasters existed, albeit being phased out. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. Do you think we could find reliable secondary sources to support a sentence or two describing that etymology and put it into the appropriate article? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To put what Jacksoncowes has explained quite well in simpler terms, I'll quote myself from above again: I think, in addition, that not having a hyphen in fact makes the job title clearer. The role is not a subordinate of a postmaster (which having the hyphen suggests), but the master of a sub-post office. Hopefully that will stymy the apparent confusion regards the difference and get back to on-topic discussion. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A reference-free introduction[edit]

Southdevonian (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your edits because you removed the "Guardianexplain" reference definition which is used elsewhere in the article. Removing the definition left the article with undefined reference errors, and placed it in the Category:Pages with broken reference names error tracking category. You've now gone and recreated that error, so the article again has referencing problems.
Why did you restore the undefined reference condition?
You also removed the "Public hearing session: Preliminary Hearing on List of Issues", "Human Impact Hearings announced by Chair for February & March 2022", "Post Office scandal ruined lives, inquiry hears ", "Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Statement of Approach 004", and "Post Office Inquiry begins phase three as compensation delays continue" references ... as well as the prose that explains the timeline of these inquiries.
MOS:CITELEAD does not say there's a simple choice. Instead, it says that the lead must conform to the verifiability guideline, like everything else; but might be omitted if they're redundant. The article is quite long and involved, but I'm not seeing the specific text you deleted elsewhere in the article. For sure, the "hearing on list of issues", "human impact hearings", and "phase three" references aren't repeated. These inquiries don't seem to be mentioned. I did find the "Approach 004" reference, though.
I don't think its appropriate to delete the referenced prose descriptive of the timeline altogether. And it's certainly not right to re-introduce the referencing error that I fixed to the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard Roll Fujitsu whistleblower[edit]

I am amazed to see no reference to the whistleblower. Others will be better placed than me to know where to add him; there are plenty of good refs e.g. "Who was Post Office whistleblower Richard Roll? Brave IT engineer who exposed awful truth", "Richard Roll's life and how Post Office scandal whistleblower became a hero" , https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/03/horizon-trial-day-4-day-of-two-halves.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sccwxcaYYo Amble123 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bondegezou (talk) These are most important and show this to be an ongoing scandal . The notion that the scandal is finished and the page just needs tidying is wrong. Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History and article size[edit]

By about 2022 the article the article was trying to cover events that had started about 20 years previously; but a scandal that then obviously still had a long way to run. The article was way over size. Many editors trimmed it and many tried to deal with the so-called ″aftermath″ which was in reality an ongoing scandal. We are at that stage again now, both in terms of the size (9779 words), and the fact that the scandal is clearly far from ending.

The analysis of causes of one of the significant heroes of this saga, Paul Marshal was:

  1. Legal – legislative failure.
  2. Legal – court/judicial failure.
  3. Post Office mendacity/opportunism.
  4. Failure in Post Office corporate governance.

Of the first some of this has, I think, been addressed but is not described in the article. For example, relatively recent statute required courts to take evidence from computers as unarguable. Has that been repealed? Of the second, see the work of Bristol University and others questioning the ethical and legal behaviour of all levels within the legal profession. The third and fourth are getting media attention and will increase. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say it all started in 1999 with deployment of an inadequately tested system. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually in the mid 1990s with the commissioning of a scheme under PFI designed as a plan that got significantly changed when the DWP/BA walked away in the late 1990s. MapReader (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the "swipe card" idea to get your benefits was eventually canned. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I urge those now working to better this article to be aware of the factors that make this a scandal rather than just a string of events started by a dicky computer program. Andrew Rawnsley highlights the current enthusiasm for hailing steps being taken towards redress amid a reluctance to expose failure.The abuse of unaccountable power is at the wicked heart of the Post Office scandal "Politicians are hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates. There’s less enthusiasm for acknowledging a collective failure." Scandals involve skullduggery and coverup. Not easy for respectable sources to publish and rightly impossible for Wikipedia to describe before they do. Published pointers towards the wrongs that Rawnsley discusses were in this wiki article, but less now. For example, the judge in Bates severely criticised witnesses, They were named in the judgment and in the article, but not now. The judge referred unnamed witnesses to the DPP. In 2019 this was reported in the article. These matters currently appear in the article under the Criminal investigation into Post Office Limited section (Fujitsu?). This short section quotes from two good sources but misses the question that arises from the actuality, What's been going on these last 4 years? The Guardian article points to the
sophistry of the quoted police statement by mentioning its lack of clarity but this article doesn't. The judge's trenchant criticism of Angela van den Bogerd is gone from this article. She has made a recent appearance in the press complaining that she was misrepresented in the television docudrama. Would anyone reading this article today know of her part in this scandal? They would have 4 years ago.
I have every understanding of the need to edit, remove, add, trim etc and, possibly, of the approaching need to split. This article has reached the size beyond which it becomes hard to read. Good editing is not the same as simple precis without proper knowledge. Many of the criticisms on this Talk page are valid and are welcomed by me. But care needs to be taken to avoid removing published material that points to the skullduggery. An article about a scandal must say or work towards saying what was done and not done, what shouldn't and should have been done, and by whom. Contrary to the talk page bombast this should be done slowly and carefully. Governments, civil servants, politicians, Post Office senior management, Fujitsu, the judicial system, judges, and lawyers are all in the frame. Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cost of Horizon[edit]

Hansard here (Kevan Jones) says "It cost over £1 billion to install..." So how much is that? "£1 billion and 23p", "£1.9 billion", or how much? Is this the best estimate we are going to get? And will this be clarified by the enquiry? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martinevans123 the ref you give is March 2020 and the discussion was in the article then, as I am sure you know. The whole subject is an ongoing aspect of the scandal. If I remember at that time the government was keen to say this is all down to the PO and they as a business will have to deal with any compensation. Of course we know know that the government later acknowledged that they were paying (Rozenberg has recently given an account of just how). It remains covered in the article up to about early 2022. A little very recent stuff but light on figures over time and future costs and the gap uncovered. I do think the cost to the public purse, the bonuses fiasco, is an important part of the ongoing scandal. But I am sure some other will see it all as too confusing, say it is irrelevant or .... Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it was for a publicly-owned body, the cost of the Horizon system, ultimately bourn by the tax-payer, should be 100% clear. The cost of any contemporaneous staff bonuses or any later compensation payments are probably irrelevant. What readers want to know is - who much were Fujitsu (and possibly other companies who were tasked with making it work) paid? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely agree. The PO chair made a public plea for Government assistance at the time that the Gov was adopting the stance that the PO was an 'arms length company' that had to deal with the issue, the implication being it must pay. But it was becoming clear that the size would bankrupt the so called company. There are course ways of putting this, more politely perhaps smoke screen, Gilding the Lilly, BS. But the danger of bankruptcy blew all that away. But so much more is now known and reported in RSs. Throughout, the matter of governance, both by the board and by the Dept for Business continues to be a main component of the scandal. The press has been covering it. Institute of Government (independent) has done some good stuff. I think you probably know all this but others may not. Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Access to Computer Weekly articles[edit]

This article uses several references to Computer Weekly articles. Most of them cannot be read without a 'corporate email address'. Does anyone know how to get access to read these please? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DeFacto, they're all available via the Internet Archive, e.g. [5]. If you can't find certain ones then maybe REX can help. – Isochrone (T) 08:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Isochrone for the tips. I did try the Internet Archive, but it seems very hit-and-miss, many are archived there with the requiring a 'corporate email address' message too, so cannot be read. Trying a different date/time usually works though. I was wondering if there was a more convenient way to access them available somewhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many post offices?[edit]

Is there a reliable source on roll-out and number of post offices? At the moment they appear contradictory - 13,000 by 2001, then back to "at least" 11,500 (quote from Vennells) in 2013 and then eventually 18,000? In February 2001, the minister for competitiveness told Parliament that 17,650 post offices were connected and 18,500 would be by the end of March [6]. Southdevonian (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post office closures in the interim? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like you are right, according to the graph on page 8 of this report [7]. Southdevonian (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead should use description closer to common reporting[edit]

I think these words should be used in the lead: commonly described as "one of the UK’s worst miscarriages of justice". There seems to be a fair consensus in British reporting using these words and very similar to summarise it. Citations with very similar wording should be easy to compile. eg: [8][9][10]

Instead, the current lead uses this phrase: "an extensive series of individual miscarriages of justice". I don't think this page should be inventing it's own way to describe the scandal as a whole if differs in meaning from common reporting, and at least should have a citation for that wording. The current lead differs in meaning in a two respects:

1) It seeks to distance and disconnect each case from each other. The word "individual" might be interpreted as "isolated" despite the evidence being that they were precipitated by a common set of bugs in the same software and pressed unfairly by a single organisation with singular intent.

2) Unlike the common reporting, it doesn't provide the contextual severity and cultural segnificance. The common reporting uses a description positions the severity in respect to other miscarriages of justice in the UK (close to the top).

I'm not aware of any contention over the commonly reported description, so I think it would be fair for this page to use the same 2A00:23C6:B30F:AC01:F836:AC1E:E658:FD4C (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I have used the term used by the CCRC and already referenced to the BBC in the article - widespread. Southdevonian (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding recent edits - I would prefer it without quotes as it is not original. I put "it has been described...." because the CCRC for example as well as the BBC (and probably other people) said it before Sunak, altho I suppose something assumes more importance if the PM says it. How about "It was described by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in the nation's history."? Or "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak acknowledged it as one of the greatest....."? With the quote later in the article. Southdevonian (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Could someone knock up a timeline showing who was in charge and who was responsible government minister from 1999 to present day? 81.110.169.44 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to add one yourself if you think it would improve the article. Southdevonian (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly think that both Peter Mandelson's and Tony Blair's involvement in the early years has been neglected!
I'm not confident in editing an article of such importance, but I am sure both of them played a very important role in the development and early roll-out. Keith T. 09:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit344 (talk • contribs)
It would require sources showing their involvement (and it to be worthy of inclusion) before anything can be added. Tony Blair's witness statement is online, the only mention of Mandelson's involvement in evidence adduced so far is a letter he sent to Stephen Byers. Neither of them have been interesting enough to have featured in the journalism to date. Mauls (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction very weaselly[edit]

"The Post Office insisted" etc. – An office cannot insist, there are people that could and should be named that made those decisions. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organisations have a voice when they make statements, etc. The intro is a summary of the article and not the place to get into apportioning blame amongst individuals. Southdevonian (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alan Bates[edit]

Note that Alan Bates (subpostmaster) has been created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! Shame about the hyphen though. Seriously, I just wondered if he is a sub-postmaster or a justice campaigner? Southdevonian (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost as famous as this guy? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Reply[reply]
I corrected the hyphenation but was reverted. plus ça change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess someone ought to check through the millions of KBs on hyphen usage at WP:MoS? What do mere dictionaries know. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sub-postmaster or sub postmaster but definately not subpostmaster~~~
Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That second one would be underwater? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the discussion about the spelling at Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters above.
Courtesy pinging all contributors: @Pigsonthewing, Southdevonian, Martinevans123, and Jacksoncowes:. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks DeFacto. [11] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Reply[reply]
You don’t think Bates himself knew how to spell the job title, when he created the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance? MapReader (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's part of the discussion though - should we be using the proper name from the PO job title or the generic English noun. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numbers mystery[edit]

The lead says that between 1999 and 2015 over 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted. Later in the article it says that by 2013 there were over 11,500 post offices using the system. Do we have any clues as to why (assuming each of the 900 were from different post offices) only around 8% of the post offices were affected if they all used the same software? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't the place for general discussion about the scandal, rather than specifically on the content of the article, but my understanding is that the most common cause for the errors appears to relate to power or connectivity problems, resulting in transactions going missing or being corrupted, which would affect only those locations with such issues (often those in remote locations or with inadquate premises or poor equipment), with other errors arising from bugs that were only applicable to rare combinations of circumstance that therefore wouldn crop up only very occasionally. It's also likely that there is some under-reporting particularly where errors were small and simply made good. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. This looks like a gap in the article's coverage to me, so perhaps we can include more about this. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooooh, that looks like quite a crucial detail, if it can be verified. It suggests that any amount of pre-implementation testing might have missed that. And that large discrepancies might have been a product of size of transactions and times of power/connectivity outage. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
p.s. in terms of system function, there's really no distinction between "large discrepancies" and "small discrepancies". Either the sums tallied at the end of the day, or they didn't. Small discrepancies were likely to have been "swept under the carpet" i.e. made up my personal payments, by sub-postmasters who did not want to appear foolish and/or did not have the time to investigate. None of this "evidence" will ever get any where near the public inquiry, of course? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I thought that it is a tiny bit of mitigation for their insistence that the system didn’t have these errors, since problems arising from interruptions (which might only be for fractions of a second) in power or connectivity wouldn’t be replicable on the terminals they would have had at Fujitsu and Post Office HQ. It also explains why replacing the kit sometimes resolved (and sometimes created) an ongoing problem. It’s from the detail within Wallis’s book, as I recall, but it’s not yet established as fact. Maybe the inquiry will spell it out, eventually? MapReader (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was suggested this morning (on BBC Radio 4's Today programme) that the discrepancies had arisen because of lack of positive feedback to the operator, that a transaction has been accepted, had led them to repeat the transaction. Perhaps this is also in Wallis's book? It sounds like a problem in HMI design or system lag or a combination of both. The customer-facing operating environment probably also played a part. Will the inquiry go to this level of detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The evidence given just an hour ago at the inquiry suggested the system had difficulty in telling whether multiple transactions were duplicate or separate, which the guy said was a recurring problem. So it may well be that if a SPMr repeatedly entered the same transaction, this wasn’t recognised back at the server. It might also explain the Jo Hamilton incident, as dramatised, where she was told to enter something agsin, and her discrepancy doubled. MapReader (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that over 2,600 postmasters (who had to pay back money, but were not prosecuted) have been compensated so far by the Post Office, it isn't correct to assume that the 900 prosecuted demonstrates the full-scale of the problem. Nor does the 2,600 compensated to date. Potentially every post office may have been affected to a greater or lesser degree, but we current cannot know (and potentially never will). Mauls (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

System suppliers[edit]

Another gap in the article seems to be who provided the various components of the system. According to one of the Computer Weekly articles that I managed to get access to on archive the other day (although I can't find it again now with Google), Oracle, Microsoft, BT, and maybe others were involved in the project along side Fujitsu/ICL. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The technical appendix to the 2019 judgment mentions some suppliers. Software from Escher Group, database from Oracle, networking by Verizon, first-line support by Atos. -- Wire723 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is "Frasier J"?[edit]

Why is Peter Fraser (judge) identified as "Frasier J" throughout this article? Is that a common British practice, or some honorific, or ... ? It confused me a bit until I found the link for the name. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because he (due to his position) is known as Justice. Mr Justice Fraser, for example, (and yes, Mr, not Sir or Lord) is how he would be called in the relevant circumstances. I don't know more, but yeah, that's it. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The BBC for example calls him Mr Justice Fraser: "But in December's High Court judgment, Mr Justice Fraser said..." [12]. I think Fraser J is more of a legal usage, for example in Josephine Hamilton and Post Office the judgment said "49. Fraser J found that POL did have access to the causes..." But he can also be called Justice Fraser (without the Mr) - this one in The Guardian.[13]. I think in the article it would be better to call him Justice Fraser rather than Fraser J. Southdevonian (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanations! I agree. I didn't know who "Frasier J" was (rap star?) and when googin' for it, I don't get useful results. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Justice Blogs would, I think, be correct for a judge of the UK Supreme Court, not for any other judge. Circuit Judge is His/Her Honour, referred to as Judge xxxx. High Court Judge is Mr of Mrs Justice, in written stuff Fraser J and addressed in court as my lord etc, in other spheres as Sir Peter Fraser. High Court Judge of Appeal Lord/Lady Justice (the first lady appeal court judge was called Lord Justice Butler-Sloss till the law was changed) also addressed in Court as my lord etc., in writing Fraser LJ. In the cases that went to appeal from magistrates (their worships) courts to the Crown Court where Her Honour Judge whatshername sat, she was addressed as my lady because an appeal is a high court matter and she sat as a high court judge for those cases. A Crown Court can deal with high court cases; the judge has to be licensed if that is the correct term. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nick Wallis blogs - postofficetrial.com and postofficescandal.com[edit]

Given that Nick Wallis is an experienced and professional journalist, and both blogs were news reporting, they are acceptable sources because they would either fall within WP:NEWSBLOG or be considered an expert self-published source under WP:EXPERTSPS.

In any event, the same material largely appears in the book The Great Post Office Scandal, also by Wallis, which was not self-published (it is published by Bath Publishing, a publisher of legal books).

Mauls (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The blogs are not published by a newspaper, magazine, or other news organisation, so do not qualify as newsblogs per WP:NEWSBLOG.
Looking at WP:EXPERTSPS it says:
  • Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.
    • So as it would be preferable to use established reliable sources, and given the profile of this story there will surely be many, we should surely drop this SPS and look elsewhere.
  • Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
    • So this rules out the possibility of using this SPS to support anything said about living people.
With respect to the book - are we even sure that it is considered to be a reliable source?
  • Is it self-published or do its publishers have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
  • Is it independent of the topic? The Kindle preview of the book shows it starting with an appeal to readers for money to help those affected by the situation, and advice for those affected on getting help for themselves.
-- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The book is published by an established legal publishers. I see no reason to doubt that it counts as a reliable source. Mauls (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Thank you very much! Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need more than your personal opinion though to answer the questions over it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have doubts that Bath Publishing is a wholly reputable publisher? From where do those arise? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but we need to show that the book in question conforms with the requirements of WP:RS as stated above. That includes knowing whether the publisher takes on all the costs of publishing it (otherwise it is considered to be self-published), whether the publishers have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and whether all concerned are fully independent of the topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have doubts that Bath Publishing is a partly financially self-published? i.e. Wallis partly paid for it? Would they not need to disclose that at their website? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know the answers to those questions arising from the RS requirements, so I posed them here to see if anyone else can throw any light on them. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Bath Publishing looks "squeaky clean" to me. Yes, some books are published alongside fund-raising / political campaigns? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have managed to confirm their RS credentials, please elucidate. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I mean I just looked at the website and saw nothing about self-publishing. Goodness knows what shady and nefarious financial dealings may be going on under the radar.... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See what I found in my previous post below from 15:02, 18 January 2024. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second this. If DeFacto thinks they are shady somehow, they can bring up evidence for that, and something better than a few donations. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mauls The blog and book are fine to use. Wallis qualifies as an expert, and as far as I know, there aren't any issues with Bath Publishing. Cortador (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the excerpt from WP:EXPERTSPS above, no self-published sources (like the blog) can be used for third-party living-people-related content, whether they are the work of an expert, or not.
Per WP:RS, linked explainers, the book could only be used if we can show that the publishers have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that we can show that, despite the publisher and/or author being involved in fundraising and/or support for the sub-postmasters in the saga, they are truly independent of the topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The book is published by Bath Publishing, and with respect to whether they and the author are truly independent of the topic, per the WP:RS requirement, this page on their website might give us a hint. It is titled: We are donating 10% of our income from The Great Post Office Scandal to help Subpostmasters. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sheesh! So Bath Publishing actually have a social conscience? Who knew! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wallis is a freelance investigative journalist. Is it correct to refer to him as a campainger, particularly a campaigner blowing his own trumpet? I suspect he would not like it. Indeed, does it offend WP:LP etc.? He makes his living selling his journalism. I hane not read anything of substance on this matter in any RS that I haven't also read in his work, usually previously. He has been behind and/or involved in all the stuff on BBC. If another ref is needed surely it should be findable? The mention on the page that he raised £9000 is a little misleading. Wasn't this raised to pay himself for attending hearings? The entry could be interpreted to mean he raised it for campaign or others. Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The book is fine to use, and will surely become the authoritative reference work for the scandal. Its author is an accredited journalist and it has a publisher; the book is thorough and well referenced, and is a fact-based account. It doesn’t indulge in speculation or hyperbole. That either the author or the publisher might have an opinion or wishes to support the associated charity is irrelevant; the Guardian and Daily Telegraph too have their opinions, and also support charitable causes from time to time, yet remain accepted as RS. MapReader (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first line of WP:COISOURCE says: Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting.
From what we know, it seems that the publishing organisation not only appeals for funds related to actors in the topic and actively funds them from its profits, but ultimately profits from the continuance of the actions in the topic.
There is this too:
-- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least five editors don't agree with your assessment. You are free to try and change that consensus, but until then, the book is a RS. Cortador (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cortador, I haven't assessed anything, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. I'm looking for answers to the questions I posted arising from the RS requirements. We need evidence that they are, or aren't, not just personal opinions, and there doesn't seem to be much forthcoming, so the questions still stand.
Do have have anything to bring to the discussion to help us decide? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The decision has been made: there's consensus that the book is suitable. You alone disagree with that, and are, apparently, complaining about a source you haven't even assessed yet. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't disagreed with, or complained about, anything, all I've done is pose questions, which have been mostly ignored. Ho-hum. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s odd that you seem so set against a source that you haven’t read, though? If you are interested in this issue, it’s an essential read. Hopefully you would then see that it’s a decent piece of investigative research, very likely soon to be vindicated by the inquiry (soon in the legal sense, that we might just live to see it), well referenced, and not at all a campaigning polemic. MapReader (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MapReader, asking for thoughts on it isn't the same as being against it. Given the number of times the blog and book have been cited in the article, I wanted us to check whether they comply with WP:RS.
I'm disappointed by the low level of considered rationales that have appeared though. How do you think that I, with no in-depth knowledge about the subject, or the author, or the publisher, could judge whether the blog or book are RS compliant or not, just by reading them?
What we need to see are a few rationales as to how they do, or dosn't, meet all the requirements of WP:RS. Then someone (probably not me though) can weigh those rationales up to assess whether either or both are RS compliant. If we are unable to do that, we might need to take it to WP:RSN and see if the wider Wiki community can help. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cortador, what about the blog, have you decided what the consensus is on using that is yet? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's £13.99 in paperback. If we all clubbed together and sent you the £1.40 that would go to the Horizon Scandal Fund, perhaps you could buy a copy and read it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joan Bakewell tweet[edit]

Hasn't Joan Bakewell got it a bit wrong? The inquiry was set up in 2020 - before the publication of the Wallis book in 2021. And is there any way of removing the text in the footnote, since it all appears in the article? Southdevonian (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly it's been deleted. When I was editing regularly I was hit by loads saying no tweets. I think Ms Bakewell's tweet X whatever was used correctly. That she didn't know that an Inquiry was set up, then boycotted, then stopped, then another started etc seems neither here nor there; she was expressing her view that the book was good. Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a very tasty quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put it back. I think it's a very valid comment for the 'media' section. Ms Bakewell is a Labour peer and public figure. Mauls (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any way of removing the repetition of the quote in the footnote? Southdevonian (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see it has been deleted a second time, again without discussion. Mauls (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the tweet adds anything significant to the article. I read it as a criticism of the Government for taking so long to set up an inquiry, and on this point her chronology is slightly out. Someone else has read it as an endorsement of the book by Nick Wallis. I have no problem with the Wallis book as a source, but the article doesn't need promotional quotes. Southdevonian (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of witness statement from CEO of Fujitsu[edit]

There isn’t a 29/02/2005. It isn’t a leap year. 86.14.176.172 (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does that date appear in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's three instances of "2005" in the article, none of which refer to such a date. Cortador (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This morning, Paterson, Horizon inquiry, questioned about old reports (from Fujitzu to PO, I think). Guardian Piece now on line "Post Office IT scandal: Fujitsu boss condemns ‘shameful’ editing of witness statements". I guess, but have not fully checked, that 86.14.176.172 identified one dated 29/02/2005. Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blogs[edit]

(DeFacto (talk) I think you should specify precisely the person that you think the various policies refer to and to give a precise definition of what you, and then what wikipedia defines as self publishing. Rozenberg is a very respected legal journalist, Wallis a respect investigative journo. Their stuff is widely publiished in respected sources. The notion that it is simply for the deleter to delete and then get into a circular never ending discussion dosent seem to me either to be a good way of proceeding. If you are right that wiki has a cardinal rule that any form of what you have labeled must never in any circumstances be used in any article that. mentions people then s bookit is very silly. The mention of Lord Falconer is a good example. That has been on the page for years the remark is widely published and widely known. I am sure it is in Wallis' Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The amount of article deleted today by DeFacto is close to vandalism. Such significant changes - even if justified - need consensus before they are mad. I have reverted two I disagree with the most. MapReader (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MapReader, there's a lot more to go yet to get closer to being Wiki policy compliant. And please read WP:VANDNOT and WP:BLPRESTORE before you get into trouble. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the deleted material has been there for days, during which you could and should have set out the case on the talk page and achieved consensus. Do you have a conflict of interest to declare? I’ve rarely seen so much material deleted from an article in one day. MapReader (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter how long it's been there, if it contravenes WP:BLP it should not be there. I've not often seen an article so full of stuff that contravenes most of Wiki's core policies, especially WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but that you haven’t established. Of the two bits I restored, one is a statement of fact about the publication of a book, which in no way contravenes BLP. The other is a comment about the conduct of a firm of solicitors, not any named person, based on something that was published.
I think you may be on thin ground with some of the others, too, but resisted the temptation to restore the article to its previous state wholesale. You’ve been editing the article throughout - you haven’t just arrived here today - and should have proceeded by raising the issues here first. I note you’ve also ducked my question about a conflict of interest. MapReader (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sorry - the one of the book publication wasn't a BLP issue, it is an OR issue as it isn't an RS supported statement. We should start another thread if you do not agree with that though.
The ones relying on the Post Office Trial and Rozenburg blogs are the BLP problems and should not be restored, and other contraventions using them should be eliminated. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Material written by Rozenburg, about Rozenburg, cannot be a BLP violation. See WP:BLP.
The book publication was supported by two independent media sources. Why are you claiming it was OR? Why did you remove the other media citations? Mauls (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which two independent media sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jacksoncowes, please read WP:SPS, WP:RS/SPS, and WP:BLPSPS, they answer your questions. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the half-sentence about The Lawyer article from the investigative reporting because it is not really an investigative piece and is not specifically about Womble Bond Dickinson. It really belongs in the sections about the Bates case. Southdevonian (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeFacto (talk)You ought to be able to say who the person is in respect of a piece you delete. I can only ask you do that. It must, surely, be easy to set out specifically how WP:SPS, WP:RS/SPS, or WP:BLPSPS, has been violated in respect of each deletion?. Who is the person and in what way is it about that person. This is merely a polite request for you to show in what way you are right.
Southdevonian (talk) Thank you. In essence I haven't had any problem with that edit. The article generally has been moved about lately so it is inevitable that things will need correcting. I think the piece and its first reference had been elsewhere in the article, and moved recently. In its present form it is not, I think, my entry. Could it have been moved rather than deleted? I fully understand that that can take a great deal of time. It is a useful entry to have in the article because the conduct of the lawyers is most central to this scandal, Marshall said recently to the Inquiry that it has been misleading for this whole business to have been portrayed as a computer scandal when it is actually a legal profession and governance scandal, Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mauls (talk) Thank you. The piece about Mr Wallis's application in the High Court can be found on Scribd. It is a properly prepared, authorised and published transcript of a court proceeding. Extremely important to the gradually revealing scandal. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mauls (talk) And I have just got to the all of the appellants are grateful bit. I am know this well and am sure it had been in. Doesn't it wonderfully show in breathtaking terms the depth of non understanding? So ta again. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was on the court transcript, but any commentary around it (rather than just a quote) should be supported by a secondary source. Hence, in this case, citing Wallis's book. Mauls (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Lawyer was always in the Investigative reporting section [14]. It is a lengthy interview with a Freeths partner so it gives some interesting background to the Bates case but isn't really investigative and is not particularly critical of Womble Bond Dickinson. Southdevonian (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mauls, please give the diffs to help me know which of my edit summaries you do not follow. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compensation[edit]

Southdevonian (talk) The references do support. That's exactly the point that several barristers were making to the inquiry and I refer to two of them. The multiple submissions are complex so they do need to be read fully. I haven't quoted them directly but my edit is a perfectly fair way of saying what Ms Page was quoted in this article long ago. I expect its in Wallis's book. It was set out in terms to the inquiry in July 202222 by Ms Page and several others. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC). Further the fact that a ground 2 finding is rare is said frequently in the judgment.Reply[reply]

The sentence about compensation needs a source, preferably a secondary source, that specifically says there are implications. If it says so in Wallis's book that is enough, but it needs a page number. Southdevonian (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The existence of the so called Clarke Advice was very controversial, its disclosure was said to have been and the Post Office fought legally and fiercely to keep its contents secret. That was what was behind Marshall having to withdraw from the Hamiltom appeal undo an apparent charge of contempt that was later said either to have been dismissed or never to have existed. Murky stuff. The document's contents are long and largely unknown. It wasn't published when that section was written. I don't think it is correct to say that the it led to the Post Office carrying out the CK review cos it was meant to be in some way independant of the post office, but I'm not sure. I agree it will be helpful but it might not be easy to get now.
Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Times had a sentence about the Clarke advice recently, so I added it at the top of the 'Clark advice' section. Wire723 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also in Computer Weekly [15] Southdevonian (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further would you mind repairing it Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the article really need a Felstead & Ors section?[edit]

This article is very long and difficult to read. The scandal isn’t over yet and there will be more information to add to the article in future. So I think it is important to keep the text reasonably concise at this stage. For example, is it really necessary to have a whole section on Page and Marshall? They were representing 3 subpostmasters and then resigned from the case after being criticised for leaking a document to the press and police. No action was taken against them. I think a few lines about them in the Clarke advice section is enough. Even the judge himself said that it was an "unnecessary, unwelcome and time-consuming distraction from appeal proceedings". Southdevonian (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southdevonian (talk)Yes. This is where one barrister had manoeuvred the court into a position that led to opponent barristers, who had raised questions of conflict of interest and was going for the Ground 2, to have to withdraw from the case. Described by Wallis (without detail) as murky stuff. The range of implications are clear.
With respect, the notion that a 25 year ongoing scandal involving wrongdoing and coverup with thousands of unconnected victims can be covered in an easily read wiki page is unrealistic. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the article need extracts from the Horizon inquiry transcripts?[edit]

As I said in the previous section, the article is very long and difficult to read. I think it does not need extracts from the Horizon inquiry transcripts (potentially a vast amount of material). If anything noteworthy is said at the inquiry it gets into the mainstream media, which are better sources than original inquiry transcripts. Southdevonian (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southdevonian (talk) Yes it does. The smoking gun, i.e. Clarke advice, leading to the CK review, leading to the Altman review, leading to advice by ..... to the Post Office not to disclose, led to jail and suicide. It is right at the nub of the scandal. The submission I quoted led to the chair of the Inquiry asking, very publicly, for the parties to waive privilege and that was very quickly agreed by all, including the Govennment owning Post Office. Yes, its a bit long, possibly should be trimmed, not reverted. The lengthy stuff about Horizon as a computer package should be shortened, as should the stuff about implementation, and about Second Sight. Newspaper articles about dry difficult matters like disclosure are rare. Marshall's sentence "Given the emergence of the shredding advice, shortly before the Court of Appeal hearing in March this year, one is bound to enquire as to whether Mr Clarke had intentionally withheld from him the prosecution file." containing so much but no allegation is a good example. The Telegraph covered the shredding but in what detail. The connection between the very big bigwig is discussed on blogs.
Delay that is so helpful to wrongdoers surely has no place on wikipedia? Marshall quote is over two years old. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the section on Horizon needs shortening. As does the section on Court cases. But what the article does not need is extracts from the inquiry. There will eventually be a published report. And meantime the media are reporting on the inquiry, and they can be used as reliable sources. If someone says something important at the inquiry it will be reported. The Clarke advice dates to 2013, by which time most of the convictions that this article is about had already taken place, so it was not responsible for the convictions or consequences. It reminded the Post Office of their obligations as prosecutors. Blogs are not reliable sources, by the way. Southdevonian (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Southdevonian (talk)Your comment that the Clarke is better in Hamilton is valid, yes it might be. It could usefully sit in a number of the court case sections. I also think that the court sections could now be shortened because the stuff has slowly over time been reported. It, Clarke etc, existed before Bates but wasn't disclosed then as the law and ethics demanded it should. That's where the scandal deepened and the coverup changed gear. You asked just a few days ago what was in it. That in itself is an indication of how little it has yet been reported. The most important aspect of the Clarke, CK and Altman 'reviews' is the non disclosure of them, indeed the non disclosure of their existence, rather than the contents (I an not sure they have ever been published). The unsuccessful attempt to prevent them going before the Appeal was scandalous. The very late and partial appearance in the appeal aided the argument for Ground 2, which the court initially indicated it would not allow. Marshall intended to argue that the court must hear that argument. Wether he was right or wrong, wise or foolish to intend to do that I don't know. The argument was later made and led to the potential for proper compensation for the victims. Compensation for one who can can satisfy a court that the Post Office wanted to hurt. etc. like C perhaps is in for mega bucks The argument here, that inquiry stuff shouldn't be used is no different than the argument that court judgments shouldn't have been used. It has taken years for the sparse reporting that has occurred. That is why the TV prog is having such an effect. Guardian this morning, 6pm news tonight. This didn't happen when Bates and Hamilton finished. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.s The first part of the lead used to mention the various victims who weren't taken to court. Thats all gone. The number in the lead now looks silly against the 4000? victims. I am notnin any way trying to imply that you or anyone in particular is responsible for that. The page has been nibbled at over a long time with little apparent understanding of the whole picture.
Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem is with the first sentence, which defines the scandal as miscarriages of justice, that is people wrongly convicted in criminal courts or wrongly found against in civil cases. It by definition excludes the people who were never taken to court but were forced to pay money they didn't owe or had their contracts terminated. The latter groups do get a mention in the next paragraph. Southdevonian (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Clarke advice is published here [16]. But please no extracts or quotes from it unless published in an RS! I think we will have to wait to see how it fits into the bigger picture regarding disclosure failures at the Post Office and possible prosecutions. Southdevonian (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No the article does not need extracts from the Horizon inquiry transcripts. We should only use independent and reliable secondary sources, and not include anything not covered in those. See WP:REPUTABLE and WP:BESTSOURCES for the Wiki policy on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic facts are missing from the article[edit]

Things that every reader will want to know, but which are missing from, or well hidden in, the article are:

Shouldn't we try to make all of these, at least, clear in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to find them and insert them. A few points though: the number of post offices changed substantially over the time period; the overturning of convictions is ongoing and there is a proposal for exonerating all those whose convictions were based on Horizon data; compensation is ongoing. Southdevonian (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I could find them I certainly would add them. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you be able to tell me exactly what The Times says about number of convictions? The problem is there are two sets of figures floating around. Some give the total number of prosecutions/convictions and some give just those where the Post Office brought the case. And some I suspect don't bother to distinguish between prosecutions and convictions. Southdevonian (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Times says: "Between 2000 and 2015 the Post Office pursued about 900 prosecutions, securing 700 convictions for offences including theft, fraud and false accounting, sending 236 people to prison. A further 2,800 were asked to pay back money but escaped prosecution". It sounds clear to me. If there are other interpretations we need to add that discussion to the article, attributing and giving each of the various takes on it. We should not mix-and-match numbers from the different accounts though. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember that just last week someone who had been imprisoned came forward, having heard about the inquiry but previously been unaware about the campaign and the rest. Hard to believe, but there we are. And there are more who have had shortfalls, made them good, and are only coming to light now. So there isn’t a fully accurate picture as yet as to the full extent. There is also a clear risk of bandwagon-jumpers, given the compensation on offer and the pressure for a quick rather than thorough settlement process. MapReader (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks DeFacto. The Times sounds clear and matches the PO information about 700 Post Office convictions. But that figure of 700, which you can see here [17] specifically excludes those who were prosecuted by other bodies (Crown Prosecution Service, Scottish and NI prosecutors). When it comes to these the PO is less clear. They say here [18] that there were 283 prosecutions by other bodies. Do they mean convictions? Plus there have been to date nearly 3,000 claims under the Horizon shortfall scheme, that is, people who were not convicted but lost money. [19]. These figures are, as MapReader says, not definitive. More claims are coming in all the time. And even the 700 figure depends on a Post Office decision about the extent to which the convictions were based on Horizon data, which may be subject to appeal. Eventually we will be given a definitive figure but until then I think we have to say that figures are not exact. For the time being, I think this BBC article [20] reports the PO figures most accurately. Perhaps the article would benefit from a short section after the intro explaining the numbers. And what happened to the small number of Crown Post Office workers with Horizon convictions? The sources always talk about subpostmasters - presumably that includes the few who were actually Crown Office workers. Southdevonian (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole scandal is about miscarriages of justice - that is, unsafe convictions and innocent people. The beginning of the intro should reflect that and not use ambiguous wording. No all subpostmasters convicted of crimes during the period 1999-2015 are having their convictions overturned - in Hamilton 39 people had their convictions overturned and 3 people lost their appeal, so it is not a question of guilty people having convictions overturned. Southdevonian (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian, which part of the article body unambiguously and with reliable sources supports the assertion that each and every conviction was a miscarriage of justice and each shortfall was 'phantom'? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added some figures from BBC to the Proposed legislation section, although perhaps they would be better in the Compensation section. The non-convicted false shortfalls are already mentioned in the Compensation section. Southdevonian (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian, according to The Guardian, Scotland's chief prosecutor disagrees. She is reported as saying: not every case in which Horizon evidence is present will represent a miscarriage of justice. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We know that already because 3 of the 42 appellants in Hamilton did not have their convictions overturned. In those cases there was evidence besides Horizon. But this article is about the miscarriages of justice - those people who were convicted on the basis on Horizon evidence. Apart from those people who have already had their convictions overturned, the Post Office has decided that 700 of their own prosecutions came into this category. As for the non-Post Office convictions, it is still a bit confusing - eventually we will have an accurate figure for the number of people who have convictions overturned or are otherwise exonerated. Southdevonian (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian, are we saying we already know that none of those 700 cases had evidence besides Horizon and they are all confirmed as definite miscarriages? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is what the BBC says in footnote 9: "More than 900 sub-postmasters and postmistresses were prosecuted for stealing money because of incorrect information provided by a computer system called Horizon." And this is what the government is saying: "The blanket exoneration will overturn hundreds of convictions, brought about thanks to erroneous Horizon evidence, clearing the names of many people who have had their lives ruined." [21] Southdevonian (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian, so it's opinion, ambiguous statements, or sensationalist reporting and not the findings of courts. I'm not sure we should say it in Wiki's voice then. See WP:VOICE. We need to be aware that although many of the convictions may be unsafe (and only the courts can decide if they were) some of the convictions may indeed be safe. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely clear now in first paragraph that only about 100 convictions have been overturned so far. As for the other 800 or so, we will wait and see. If the government is proposing a blanket exoneration they obviously think a fair number of them have been wrongfully convicted. Southdevonian (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it looks better now. And sure, it seems that "a fair number" of them probably were, but it's not our job to declare that they all were, especially as there is reasonable doubt about that in the current sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Southdevonian (talk)Yes (93 I think but we are a long way from what the PM announced and that happening. Big constitutional issues in the press about the announcement opposition to it. By the way conflicting statements in press and on BBC about whether chairman was asked, walked or was sacked Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again re the pm statement. it is right to put it in but not there . It's not neutral. The 93 quashed out hundred but unknown number after many years is scandalous, the pm yet to be fulfilled and possibly unfulfillable statement is scandal softening, it is sophistry. There is no bill and so on. My point re the chair. What's it got to do with the enquiry? It comes from outcry, bonuses, hope to be elected. No not correct under the inquiry section than almost everything Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first paragraph says plans have been announced which I think makes it clear there is nothing definite yet. About the chairman - Badenoch is saying on TV today that it was her decision [22]. Southdevonian (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Southdevonian (talk)Re the above unsigned entry. I know. The man himself is reported differently, also by the BBC. It needs both accounts. About your last edit "paved the way etc. As I write this it was in the lede. It is journalese, but much more importantly it is misleading and in that sense wrong, moreso in the lede. The declared unreliability of Horizon was a part, but a minor part of what led, for a few, still only a few on a long rocky road. It was the fact that the Post Office and Fujitsu knew it was faulty, gave false evidence, and did not disclose, as by statutory rules require they must, to the defence lawyers in the prosecutions. They also tried to withhold from the court of appeal and nearly succeeded. The convictions were declared unlawful (malicious is different). This has been played down by many for obvious reasons but needs emphasising. The court does not overturn often cases together. I believe the largest combined 'quashing' ever is ten. This was 500+. It was unlawful for them to have been prosecuted, but still, their road to compensation remains unpaved.
The editing and restoration (collective) of the last 48 hours has, to me, been impressive. I hope that is taken in the spirit it is meant.
Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The 2019 ruling paved the way for millions of pounds worth of future pay-outs and led to the Court of Appeal quashing the convictions of postmasters who were wrongly accused of committing crimes."
That quote is from a government source [23]. Southdevonian (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Yes indeed, that the problem. It drips with sophistry. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert of the edited lede[edit]

MapReader (talk). You misapply BRD. "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see.). (etc.) I'm very happy to discuss whatever deficits exist in my edit but to revert in this situation is not justified. I explained, perhaps too fully, my concerns about the contents of the lede before I made the edit. Those points need to be addressed. That should have been done either by editing my edit or brought up here. I respect the editing that has been done but the lede was concealing and misleading. The article covers the points I put into my edit. Its predecessor didn't, it left out the nub of the scandal. I have attempted to set out my concerns and those concerns should be answered here. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the contrary, if someone does something so bold as to completely rewrite the lead of a very active article, deleting large parts of it, and any editor isn’t happy with the changes, then the correct route is to revert and invite the editor to justify their changes - in whole or in parts, as you see fit - on the talk page. If there is consensus supporting the revised version, then it is later implemented; otherwise the status quo remains. MapReader (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MapReader. I understand the point when you say "...to completely rewrite the lead" but I think you exaggerate a bit. It was a rewrite of the beginning, plus some deletions of stuff like who broke the story. Perhaps it is just a question of degree about which we can just agree to differ. I would be grateful if you could address the points I made in my last entry to you viz " ....but the lede was concealing and misleading. The article covers the points I put into my edit. Its predecessor didn't, it left out the nub of the scandal." As an example the lede I edited said nothing about the non disclosure by the post office of the Horizon faults during their prosecutions, about their aggressive non disclosure during the Bates case or the fact that they were required by law to make those disclosures. A reader would not get any knowledge that the postmaster's convictions were quashed because their prosecutions were unlawful or of the post office attempts to cover up. My lede attempted at least at giving an inkling. There is a whole load more that it did not say or allude to. If you can those points please do so. If not lets not get into a drawn out hyphen type discussion. Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox[edit]

If it was okay to have the PO logo in the article, then I do not see why it should not be in the infobox. Also a link to the Horizon inquiry is appropriate - it is the website about the scandal inquiry. So I am restoring the previous version of infobox. Southdevonian (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure the infobox adds much in this case anyway. It's not the sort of article that's easily boiled down to statistics and pithy statements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that an infobox is not appropriate for this. If it is used though, the PO logo is inappropriate for it and the website of the inquiry should not be used as if it was the official scandal website. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - the infobox provides a high-level overview of the scandal, and compliments the article. Considering the introduction of the article is very text heavy, I think creates an easy, general overview. I think include a different website however. Icaldonta (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - happy with the full works: box + logo + website link. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy with having no infobox. A good lead is more useful. If we have an infobox, I'm not convinced that we should pick out one logo in particular. More pictures in the article would be a good thing. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:MOSLOGO strongly argues against using a logo. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Horizon Inquiry has a logo. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numbers in intro[edit]

This sentence is wrong: "As of January 2024, of the estimated 4000 victims of the scandal 39 have been exonerated, 93 have had their convictions overturned and the majority of compensation claims remain unsettled." Apart from anything else, it might give readers the misleading impression that there are 4000 convicted people. The first paragraph of the intro explains that there are people who were convicted, but that most of the victims do not have convictions, although they are eligible for compensation. Best not to mix the two groups. Of those with convictions - 93 so far have had their convictions overturned in the courts as it already says in the first paragraph. That figure of 93 includes the 39 from Hamilton. As far as I can see from these tables [25] the PO has made 2645 settlement offers but there is no information on how many of the offers have been accepted so we don't know if the majority remain unsettled. Southdevonian (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Southdevonian Thank for bringing it here. You reverted me saying the numbers are wrong. You should be able to say where they are wrong. They are not. Of the 93 overturned convictions only 39 have been overturned and exonerated., 42 of the 93 have not been exonerated. There is information in the tables showing settled compensation claims and interim payments, the number settled is tiny. It is now misleading because the 555 are claiming to have been wrongly forced to accept. You now say the sentence is wrong. Perhaps you could have edited tit o a form that retained the meaning. I don't think that anyone reading the lead could possibly get to my sentence at the end of the lead thinking 4000 people have been convicted. They could, I think, come to the view it is really only, or mainly about 93 convictions. Overturning a conviction is not an exoneration. What about the people who were prosecuted, but not convicted. They haven't been exonerated in spite of being hauled before a court that was told there was nothing wrong with the accounting system when the initiator of the prosecution knew there was. They are extremely unlikely to be ever to be exonerated unless they can afford to mount a claim for wrongful prosecution (not the same as malicious prosecution). Such a case is reported fully in the Guardian this morning. For all of those reason I believe we should not put exact numbers in the lead. Accurate ball park figures would be better in the lead because they are changing daily.
I know it is turgidly difficult and confusing. Many involved in the scandal (not editing the article) are determined to make it as confusing as possible. Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian. Having reverted me again before reading my reply does constitute discuss an is definately not the way editing should be Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a technical legal difference between exoneration and having a conviction quashed, it is not explained anywhere in the article and so should not be introduced in the introduction. And it needs to be remembered that Wikipedia is intended for a general readership. Southdevonian (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian Please reinstate what you have just reverted. Then we can discuss this properly. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the moment the intro does not contain exact numbers - it is all "over", "nearly" etc, except for two historic figures - number of claimants in Bates and number of prosecutions by Post Office (which could be changed to "about" in case they uncover any more). I think it would be a good idea to keep it that way. Southdevonian (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian Do you intend to undo your revert of my edit? Exoneration is an ordinary English word fully explained in all good dictionaries. We do not have define word before we use them. The distinction between is set out in the article. It is explained on the talk page. The figures are not wrong and you should repair what you reverted. There is a wikki word for what you are doing and it is not yet discuss. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dictionary definition of exonerate is sufficiently broad to include overturning of convictions. That, I think, is what most people would understand. If there is a technical legal difference between having a conviction quashed and being exonerated, then it needs to be explained in the article rather than being put in the introduction. At the moment the article mentions "exonerate" or "exoneration" six times: one is in a ref; four relate to the plans for a blanket exoneration by the government. That leaves one mention: in the section about Hamilton, and it does not explain the specialist way that the word is being used. The intro needs to stay readable, without readers having to puzzle over legal terminology. If you must introduce this difference between quashing convictions and exonerating people, then I would suggest a footnote after the use of the word "exonerate" in the Hamilton section. Southdevonian (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian You reverted me wrongly saying it was incorrect and that the majority had been compensated. You were wrong. You reverted again saying my figures were wrong. They weren't. You reverted again whilst I was replying to you to show you the figures were correct. Now you are on a different tack. How the point is phrased is much less important to me or to the article than is to get into the lead the fact that of the estimated 4000 victims, the overwhelming majority have not been cleared or compensated (settled) in spite of the decades that this scandal has been running. You have been wrong on each of your edits and reverts of this point; so long as those straightforward points get into the lead I don't care how it is worded or who puts it in. I don't think you are discussing properly.
Please see the discussion about the lead at Talk:British Post Office scandal#Numbers in intro above.
Courtesy pinging all contributors: @Pigsonthewing, @Martinevans123, @DeFacto (talk). @Kingsif (talk) Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy pinging all contributors: @Pigsonthewing, @Martinevans123, @DeFacto (talk). @Kingsif (talk) Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need a ((ping|USER|USER)) template.
Courtesy pinging @Pigsonthewing, Martinevans123, and DeFacto: see above. Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The amount of compensation paid out to date can be seen in the tables here [26] for people without convictions (which I think includes people who were prosecuted and found not guilty) and the amount paid to people with convictions can be seen here [27]. A total of £128 million has been paid out in compensation to date, but the figures do not tell us how much of that has gone in final settlements. People with convictions cannot be compensated until their convictions are overturned (unless they are entitled to interim payments - I don't know). As for the people without convictions I imagine delays are caused because a final amount is still being negotiated. But from those figures you cannot conclude that the majority of claimants have not received compensation. I would say slightly more than half have received compensation, although perhaps not all of them have received final settlements, and most of the rest are still waiting because their convictions have not been overturned yet. Southdevonian (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You repeatedly reverted. You should have edited. I attempted to put in a concise statement that drew together the estimated number of victims (4000), the majority of those convicted have not had their convictions overturned (less than 100 out of 900), and the majority of the 4000 have not had their compensation claims settled (30 fully settled). You could have edited to include settled but you reverted and reverted again. Sentences to the effect of "The majority of the estimated 4000 victims of this two-decade scandal have not yet had their convictions overturned or their compensation claims fully settled. For some this has been so for two decades" should be in the lead. The confusion that you show and that we all have experienced is, IMO, being used by Government, PO and others. Coverup is at its heart, I believe it is important that the article does not simply repeat confusing statements, My suggested sentence in the lead would help to lessen the confession. Too much has been removed without realising its importance. More should have been moved and written around to clarify. The article needs to be read, eg exonerate is in and it 'technical' relevance explained. See recent entry to Individual cases section. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the quote you have made today under Compensation means 67% of 4000 then I am wrong. I can see nothing in the transcript of House of Commons to say what number it is a percentage of. If is of the estimated 4000 it is itself an estimate. It rather looks like it is known what the actual number is. How can that be? And where is it published. If you read the question that preceeds that statement you will see it was specifically about the convicted. Frankly, I do not yet feel that it is 67% of the estimated 4000. Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4000 looks like a very round number, doesn't it. Just saying. (Perhaps the Horizon software made them round it to the nearest thousand...) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4000 is the estimate so it would be a round number Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So that could be anything between 3,500 and 4,500, or between 3,999 and 4,001... or what? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southdevonian Do you think it refers to 67% of 4000? It is not clear on the page one way or the other. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kevin Hollinrake's words were "64% of all those affected by the scandal have received full and final compensation." So it looks as if it refers to the people across the 3 schemes, which I think comes to over 4,000. The 4,000 figure in the article is referenced to two BBC articles which say "over 4000" (one of them adding "estimated"). I expect there will be an update on figures soon. Southdevonian (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I have just googled [28] "More than £32.4 million has been paid in compensation to date, including 30 full and final settlements. You can find more information about assistance for appealing convictions here." That is google selecting from the Post Office Report dated Jan 10 (same day). Strange isn't it? If you are right I would change the word majority in my proposed sentence to only 64% . I will wait. One way or another if we wait you will eventually become right, if you are not already. More seriously, the plethora of reports of complaints in the RS about the victim's anger about the compensation, the NDAs, the current aggressive treatment by the Post Office, and the lack of those press comments in the article is causing the page to look unbalanced. Bates is quoted rejecting the compensation offer as cruel and insulting. Just reporting Gov and PO statements without press commentary IMO isn't good. Who's voice is it now? The Chairman of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board has written in rough term to the PO CEO about the way the PO is behaving. PO is referred to SRA. ets etc. Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your quote refers to people with convictions only. I referenced it (footnote 29) in one of my posts above. The majority of compensation paid out by 10 January went to people without convictions and can be found on another Post Office page (footnote 28) in a post above. Southdevonian (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please address or even acknowledge the points I made above. They are important. I acknowledge that you think the minister meant 64% of about 4000 and that you may be, probably are right. It is clear from lots of current press articles that the issue is currently more controversial than the whole article shows it. IMO. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You come close to edit warring. Please address the issues above. For example The Post Office solicitor has been referred to the SRA and they have stated they are investigating the Post Office. This was called for and that fact was covered in the article years ago. Its now a fact; it has happened, but no mention here. RCs produce evidence that the Government knew about the Horizon faults before the Bates case. These are facts; it is a fact that evidence has been made public. Misunderstanding the full scope of ordinary words like exonerate and commentary and then misusing them does not address issues. The template is there not necessarily to criticise. It is also to encourage editors to look for and add cover of the really quite broad and very important matters that have been in RSs since October last year and have not come into the article. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I say below, the currents events template is inappropriate. You misunderstood the compensation figures (which is easily done) and added something incorrect to the introduction. I corrected it. As for the SRA, etc., you can add a section if you think it is noteworthy, although the article is far too long already. And the introduction stays readable and concise. Southdevonian (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martinevans123 (talk) The number 4000 is widely quoted as the estimated number of victims of the scandal. Now, it depends on what is meant by total victims. I believe but, don't know, the Post Office is saying its all those eligible for compensation, and that is a regularly changing figure. It is well reported that the Post Office has been opposing claims and reducing the number of claims they regard as eligible, and others say they are wrong. Without defining the whole stating a percentage is iffy. The smaller the undefined number, the greater is the percentage of settled claims. The highly questionable activities by the post office in opposing claims is reported (Financial Times, Law Gazette) issuing don disclosure letters said to be unethical. The full Hansard reference given in the article to support the 64% claim shows that the government-appointed compensation board has been at loggerheads with either the government or the Post Office or both. The Post Office solicitors has been referred to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. I dont know what the 6$% relates to. I guess it is not to the widely used BBC estimate of 4000 but now to a gradually reducing Post Office defined number of eligible continuing claims. It is very thick mmud to get through.

No need for a current events template[edit]

The template is inappropriate for this article. WP:CET explains when a current events template may be needed. Whether or not the article needs more commentary is another question. In general, Wikipedia articles should be about facts, not commentary. In particular, this article is far too long as it is, without additional commentary. Southdevonian (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it does. Please see my concerns about voice, balance etc In my entries throughout this talk page. removing the template twice before any response on the talk page is not polite. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories