Talk:British Post Office scandal/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Nick Wallis blogs - postofficetrial.com and postofficescandal.com

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)

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)
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)
 Thank you very much! Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
We need more than your personal opinion though to answer the questions over it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
You have doubts that Bath Publishing is a wholly reputable publisher? From where do those arise? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If you have managed to confirm their RS credentials, please elucidate. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
See what I found in my previous post below from 15:02, 18 January 2024. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Sheesh! So Bath Publishing actually have a social conscience? Who knew! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)

Spelling of sub-postmasters / subpostmasters / SubPostmasters

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)

Re the spelling; the OED only recognises the hyphenated spelling. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
And yet National Federation of SubPostmasters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
The BBC uses a hyphen. I think that consistency is good idea, which ever is used. Southdevonian (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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:

  • BBC News: "sub-postmaster" 5-0 "subpostmaster"
  • The Guardian: "sub-postmaster" 0-2 "subpostmaster"
  • i: sub-postmaster 5-1 subpostmaster
  • Independent: "sub-postmaster" 6-1 "subpostmaster" (the "1" is in a verbatim quote from the federation)
  • Sky News: "sub-postmaster" 0-2 "subpostmaster"
  • The Telegraph: "sub-postmaster" 3-0 "subpostmaster"
  • The Times: "sub-postmaster" 14-1 "subpostmaster"

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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)
Reference this long standing article on WP: National Federation of SubPostmasters MapReader (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Toss a coin? With a footnote explaining the alternative? Southdevonian (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Very good idea(!) I did, and it was heads, so we use the hyphen. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 22:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • Having read the whole discussion here and the bit in the discussion below, I think there are valid reasons for both "sub-postmaster" and "subpostmaster", as well as no real way to say there are more reasons for one than the other. I also do not believe there necessarily needs to be consistency in the spelling across all Wikipedia articles. However, there should be internal consistency in this article (and likely all related to it). To resolve this, I suggest a simple vote (actual vote) - explanations not necessary if we all agree there are good reasons either way - to decide which version to use here. Hyphen or no hyphen, it does not seem to matter, except for internal consistency. Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    mea culpa mea maxima culpa - having researched it is now clear to me that subpostmaster is more correct. It is used throughout the published judgments and by Nick Wallis.
    Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Kingsif, I find it interesting that you cannot choose between the two. Could you perhaps give us what you think are the reasons for and against for each, as food for thought, given that we seem to be entrenched here. That might help us to shift one way or the other and help reach an agreement before we consider your suggestion of having a vote on it. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    Sure - there's different arguments to both and perhaps enough to say that we can't have an 'objective' value judgment because there are too many strengths to both, even if not equal.
    Subpostmaster
    • The proper name used for the group within the Post Office
    • The preference within Wikipedia (including the PROPERNAME guidelines) that such proper names should be considered if there is no overwhelming reason not to
    • MOS for The Guardian
    • MOS for Sky News
    • Mixed use with other version by the BBC
    • Argument that the hyphen in the common noun spelling originated from its necessity in "sub-post office", rather than any standard or need in the spelling of the job title I include this as a strength of the unhyphenated spelling specifically because 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. The independence of the job is also relevant to the subject.
    • Unclear historic usage
    • The spelling used in the official documents relating to the Judgments relevant to the topic
    Sub-postmaster
    • Used in Oxford spelling (one variety of British English, but not the standard)
    • MOS for The Telegraph
    • MOS for The Times
    • Most frequently used by the i and Independent (same newspaper IIRC)
    • Mixed use with other version by the BBC
    • Unclear historic usage
    • Most historic spelling that can be found, which may establish a COMMONNAME
    So, yeah, I can't choose. Just make sure whichever is chosen is used consistently throughout the articles on this topic. Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Kingsif, thanks, that makes it much clearer.
    A couple of points though...
    • If we use the proper name should we capitalise it, and if so how, "Subpostmaster" or "SubPostmaster", given that WP:PROPERNAME says "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized"?
    • No, i and Independent are no longer from the same publisher.
    • It's not only the OED (and 'Oxford Spelling' only differs for 'ise' and 'ize') that spell it with a hyphen - so does the online Collins. I couldn't find any dictionaries that gave the hyphen-free spelling.
    Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    It is very clearly not a proper name, but an occupation, and does not attract capitals. And the various mentions above to Oxford spelling don’t seem relevant, when the article is written in standard British English and not its Oxford variant. MapReader (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    Oxford variant? Southdevonian (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think we're confusing the issue here. Oxford spelling is basically standard British English but using 'z' instead of 's' in words using structures like 'ise' or 'isation' such as 'organise' which becomes 'organize' and 'organisation' which becomes 'organization'. It doesn't alter the fact that the OED is generally considered to be the preeminent dictionary of the English language. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    @MapReader, then why isn't it in the OED, or any of the other mainstream online British English dictionaries that I've found, do you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    In my Oxford Conscise dictionary, it's not listed at all (just postmaster), which tells you that they have it down as an uncommon word. Which, indeed, it has been until the recent scandal. The purpose of the hyphen is to add clarity where words ran together are unfamilar, and to avoid a misread as meaning a master of the subpost. There do seem to be online dictionaries that use the unhyphenated form, including Wictionary. Nevetheless we have three sources as to the correct formulation - the Post Office, as the only organisation that has them, the Federation, as the union or trade body that represents them, and the JFSA as the campaign group that has championed their cause. All three use the unhypenated form, as does the official inquiry website. MapReader (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    To reply directly to DeFacto's points. An official name can still be a common noun, and thus it should not be capitalised. Noted about i/Independent. Oxford spelling isn't only the ise/ize thing, it is an MOS originally with a philosophy based on etymology and prescriptivism that differs from other MOS' of British English in other small ways, it's just the ise/ize (typically considered a Commonwealth/USA difference) is a notable feature. In pointing it out, I was hinting that the article would ideally be marked as using Oxford spelling (and yes we have a template for that) if that spelling was chosen.
    To reply to the further debate below that. I had hoped my lists would highlight that there are multiple valid arguments for both spellings. Different people will find different strengths to different arguments than others. As there is no strong reason to favour - or dislike - one over the other, because of the plentitude of arguments, I think that debating "use an independent dictionary" or "use the common official name" or anything else is pointless at this juncture. You disagree which strength is more important. So, a vote? Kingsif (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Apart from your first point, I would disagree on all counts. I don’t understand the “ideally” in relation to Oxford spelling, which has no particular ties with this subject matter? The article is obviously about a British subject and is already written in standard British English, which every editor has used, probably quite naturally. The article is unlikely to attract much editing interest from outside the UK. So ENGVAR has never been an issue. On the spelling of the word, one is correct usage according to the most authoritative sources and the other isn’t, which is a very strong reason; it’s not just a question of preference. That someone has a fondness for the hyphen is obvious - I noticed yesterday that in the Paula Vennells article, rather than keep the formatting of text quoted directly from citations - from The Guardian and Computer Weekly respectively - some past editor had amended them to introduce hyphens. Whole sentences copied from citation are almost always copy-and-paste, so it looks likely that this change was made deliberately, which does seem peculiar editing, especially most editors know that a quote should carry its format over ‘as cited’. The subpostmaster is master (or mistress) of a sub post office (SPSO), not working to or beneath the postmaster, who is (or was, since they are no more) a different beast entirely, which is why the hyphenated form looks wrong to anyone who has spent their life working in the postal industry. For anyone with an undue fondness for the hyphen, it would actually be more logical to write subpost-master! MapReader (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    The term occurs seven times in quotes. In three cases it has been correctly quoted ( two sub- and one SubP) but in the other four it has been incorrectly quoted. I will change them. By the way there is no such thing as "Oxford spelling". It is just spelling according to the Oxford Dictionary just as you can have spelling according to the Collins Dictionary etc. Southdevonian (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    I take that back, having just found the Oxford spelling article. But, as people have pointed out in this discussion, it seems to be just concerned with ise and ize. Southdevonian (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that Oxford English is not appropriate. However, I don't accept that we should ignore the choice of the standard British English spelling (with the hyphen) as used by the majority of the mainstream British news media. Also wrt to quotes, spelling fixes are acceptable per MOS:SIC, which says: However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    If you consult the experts on the MOS talk page, they will explain why news media style and style guides aren’t the sources that WP follows. Matters of style ane derived from more literary guidelines, and in any event the issue here isn’t really style, but of authoritative sourcing of terminology. And insofar as there’s an error (which there isn’t), it would be with the hyphenated version - but words quoted from :SIC relate to typos - not changes to format or punctuation. Changing the format of a quotation just to suit editor preference is strongly deprecated. MapReader (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    We are not talking about style at all though, just spelling. Where we have a common noun with a standard British English dictionary spelling we need a very strong case to nevertheless insist that Wikipedia adopts the variant spelling used by the Post Office industry. WP:SPELLING says: In both British English and American English, many words have variant spellings, but most of the time one variant is preferred over the other. In dictionaries, the preferred spelling is listed first among the headwords of an entry. And, I've not seen anyone suggesting that we change "the format of a quotation just to suit editor preference", but that per the Wiki MoS, spelling errors can be corrected in quotes. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    I checked out the history. The Computer Weekly quotation was introduced into the Paula Vennells article by me, nearly four years ago, reproduced exactly as it appeared in Computer Weekly. It sat unchanged for nearly four years - hence a very stable edit - until earlier this month, when you edited the quotation to insert a hyphen. Why would you do that? You’re a hugely experienced editor, with over 40,000 edits, way more than me, and you must know that changing the format of a quotation is deprecated? In no circumstance can this be considered a typo or spelling mistake. MapReader (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    @MapReader, you didn't give a diff, what did it say in my edit summary? Was it a good-faith spelling correction? If it was, it would be compliant with WP:SIC. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Your edit justification was “consistency throughout article and per the OED”. But I am sure you know that quotes from citations aren’t required to be consistent with the article or reflect any particular dictionary. I really don’t understand why you are so exercised about this, going to the lengths of changing quoted material? The closer we get to the action - the Post Office, the Federation, Bates’s campaign, Nick Wallis’s book and blog, the statutory inquiry established by Parliament - the more the correct, unhyphenated term is being used. MapReader (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    So a good-faith mass spelling correction then. To be honest, I think it is you who are "so exercised about this". I quoted the relevant Wiki guidelines that support my edit and you still keep repeating the same unfounded criticism. That a related group of interested parties may prefer the same non-dictionary spelling is not a good reason for Wikipedia content to follow suit, especially when we have seen that most of the secondary sources covering this use the standard dictionary spelling. We have also seen below that the inquiry's website uses a mixture of both spellings. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    There’s nothing ‘good faith’ about changing quoted extracts from citations, as after 40,000 edits you know very well. MapReader (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Didn't you read WP:SIC? Especially the bit that says: ... insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically). I silently changed "subpostmaster" to "sub-postmaster" per the dictionary spelling. That's my last word here on this one specific edit in another article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    How does "standard British English spelling" align with "WP:MoS spelling"? "This is a local Post Office article for local Post Office people"!? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    See MOS:SPELLING. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Ah right. But "subpostmaster", "sub-postmaster" and "hyphen" don't appear there? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    No, but it does say: In both British English and American English, many words have variant spellings, but most of the time one variant is preferred over the other. In dictionaries, the preferred spelling is listed first among the headwords of an entry. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Ah yeah, "In dictionaries". That's all settled then. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't say Oxford spelling should be ideally used, I said (exactly verbatim, but with added emphasis) In pointing it out, I was hinting that the article would ideally be marked as using Oxford spelling (and yes we have a template for that) if that spelling was chosen. Lack of proper reading is certainly part of why this discussion has gone in circles, I'm sure. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Kingsif, yep, I'm with you on capitalisation. My main concern though is that if there is a British English dictionary spelling, then why would it not take preference over the Post Office industry preferred spelling, especially when most of the mainstream media seem to use the dictionary spelling (most of the time)? It is clear though that the choice is contentious, although I haven't seen a compelling Wiki-policy-based rationale for abandoning the dictionary spelling. I'm not sure that we have a big enough 'electorate' here to get a meaningful result from a vote, could it go to a wider audience somewhere I wonder? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Sir Wyn Williams and the statutory enquiry appear to have found a good rationale for spelling the word correctly.[1] MapReader (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    @MapReader, I guess you'd also surmise that Sir Wyn Williams and the statutory inquiry appear to have found a good rationale for spelling the word correctly in these pages too, or do you only think that when the spelling agrees with your POV?
    And I could list dozens more. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    You don’t need to; I think your POV is already very clear from your edit history. MapReader (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    A vote could happen at the WikiProject English language talkpage or to Village Pump, especially if the decision was to apply to all related articles. As you say, there is no definitive reason to prefer any spelling over another. Well, you almost say that - you must remember that OED is not the "starting point" that you must be convinced away from, but to look at all options without bias. As should everyone. If I have time I might be able to start an RfC, but if anyone considers it urgent, feel free to do so yourselves. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'd support that idea as I think it should apply to all articles. I didn't realise that there was such an argument for using the hyphen-free spelling before I first made a dictionary-based spelling change, but now I do, I'll wait until I can balance the arguments from each side before casting my vote. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Of course there’s a definitive reason, because we are not discussing a generic word from a dictionary, but a specific position established through contract by the British Post Office (formerly Royal Mail Group and before that the General Post Office). The contract in question being the 1994 SPSO (Scale Payment Sub Office) contract, which states at paragraph 1 that it is: “a contract for services and consequently the subpostmaster is an agent and not an employee of the Post Office”. So they are what the contract says they are. “Sub-postmaster” is incorrect, because they have never been ‘masters’ of the post (unlike Royal Mail’s former postmasters and head postmasters) and are not “sub-“ to a postmaster, but are master of a sub post office. Under the latest Network Transformation Contract, which covers most but not all, they are strictly now “operators”, and you will find the NFSP defining its role as representing “operators” of sub post offices, but understandably that term has never caught on and the historic term is still widely in use. Sometimes since the NTC you sometimes see “postmasters”, but using postmaster is confusing not least because of the history. As per :VOTE and :NOTDEMOCRACY it isn’t obvious what value a straw poll (not votes, which WP doesn’t do) would add to the discussion; most readers won't have encountered the term before. Nick Wallis, who given the depth of research for his 560-page book on the scandal is probably the world’s expert on the topic, uses ‘subpostmaster’ throughout his book; both within and in the appended glossary there is some of the history and a definition of terms. MapReader (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    And, p.s. for completeness, the capitalised "P" in the middle of the Federation's title is weird, but appears to be a style decision used for its title and magazine only. In its website and material, the NFSP uses "subpostmaster" or, increasingly nowadays, "postmaster". The JFSA uses "subpostmaster". Both the NFSP and JFSA are organisations created by and run by subpostmasters, and it is a principle of WP that, commonly, people get called according to how they self-identify.MapReader (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    QED. Go for it. Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    @MapReader, thanks for the new information (better late than never) and your additional opinions. It gives us more stuff to investigate and take into account when considering our thoughts on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Date of witness statement from CEO of Fujitsu

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

Does that date appear in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

Joan Bakewell tweet

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)

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)
What a very tasty quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
Is there any way of removing the repetition of the quote in the footnote? Southdevonian (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I see it has been deleted a second time, again without discussion. Mauls (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
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)

Blogs

(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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Which two independent media sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jacksoncowes, please read WP:SPS, WP:RS/SPS, and WP:BLPSPS, they answer your questions. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Lawyer was always in the Investigative reporting section [2]. 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)
@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)

Compensation

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.

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)
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)
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)
Also in Computer Weekly [3] Southdevonian (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Further would you mind repairing it Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Does the article really need a Felstead & Ors section?

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Post_Office_scandal/Archive_2&oldid=1218213685"