Jump to content

Talk:Barbara Hewson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Barbara Hewson which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.change.org/p/law-society-to-fire-barbara-hewson-senior-barrister-public-at-hardwicke
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
  • https://www.change.org/p/the-ministry-of-justice-end-the-persecution-of-children-remove-barbara-hewson
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC) If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.[reply]

Obvious bias

[edit]

I've seen some whitewashed articles on this site in my time - mostly for other Spiked columnists, funnily enough - but this one takes the cake. Absolutely no citations of any article criticising Hewson (aside from the statment from Hardwicke's, which is mentioned in such a way as to imply that the NSPCC dictated the whole thing), or the fact that Hewson only cited one source (a book by Furedi that was criticised by The Guardian for being badly researched) but of course there's paragraph after paragraph talking about how persecuted she was by that mean old charity. I'd have a go at making this article more balanced, but I know it'd get reverted in the blink of an eye.

WmConq (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)This complaint is obviously unfair. The spiked article criticising the adverse impact of Operation Yewtree on the rule of law was a legitimate comment piece. Comment pieces are not academic articles, and academic citations would be out of place. The NSPCC did not provide any meaningful critique of Hewson's article. Instead, it demanded that it be withdrawn or reworded. It sent demands to Hewson and her chambers directly, using the threat of going to news desks to try and bully Hewson and her chambers. Such a demand for censorship by a public charity against a private individual is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. The issues discussed in the article, including whether there should be a criminal statute of limitation, whether anonymity for complaints should be removed, and whether the age of consent should be changed, are all legitimate subject of public discussion and debate. In addition, numerous lawyers, journalists and academics have critiqued the unprecedented moral panic that erupted as a result of the ITV "Exposure" programme on Savile in October 2012, and the search for celebrity defendants that followed. Hewson's voice was one of many. The media coverage of her spiked article was highly distorted, as it did not consider the content of the original article, but rather the NSPCC's (over)reaction to it. The spiked article had been critical of the NSPCC's treatment of accusations against Savile as fact, and its role in Operation Yewtree. The NSPCC (and the media coverage) chose to ignore that criticism. However, more recent events such as the collapse of Operation Midland and Exaro News, the comparatively small number of claims accepted by the Savile estate, and the failed allegations against Sir Cliff Richard, all reinforce the view that Hewson's criticisms had force.WmConq (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint is still very fair, in spite of your wall of text; the NSPCC released an article on the Huffington post pointing out the many obvious flaws in Hewson's argument, so your assertion that they never provided "any meaningful critique" (perhaps you mean critique you don't like?) is nonsense. Furthermore, any later failings by Operation Yewtree do not retroactively make Hewson's article good; she had ONE source (a book written by the editor of Spiked), provided no evidence for making sweeping changes to criminal law (something she has NO experience in) and was basically offended at Yewtree for prosecuting the guilty!

Again, I'd make the article a lot fairer, but I know some editors here would just revert to the Spiked-approved version of events. Truthteller88 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barbara Hewson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

There have been two deletions (and subsequent restorations, one by me, one by someone else) of the recent media reports about Barbara Hewson receiving a harassment warning from police in relation the law student Mehul Desai, and her dispute with, Sarah Phillimore. I feel we are hurtling towards the three-revert rule. My position on these is as follows:

  • Those allegations have been widely reported in mainstream media. They are clearly relevant to the article subject.
  • Those allegations are sourced in accordance with WP:RS.
  • They are being reverted by User:WmConq. According to that editor's contribution page, pretty much all they do is edit the article on Barabra Hewson, so I suspect a personal conflict of interest. I also note that editor has previously been blocked from editing that page.
  • Separately the reasons stated for reverting (that despite reports, "[n]o question of qualified privilege arises. Hewson was never served with a PIN in relation to Desai, whose claims about Hewson are false") do not really stack up. The article reports that those allegations were made and a warning was issued. Whether or not Ms Hewson has legal grounds for challenging the legal process in relation to that warning is not the issue.
  • I am also not sure what a "PIN" is or why one would be served with one in such a case, but it does suggest that the editor has a close personal knowledge of the situation given that this appears in none of the reports.

I have left a message on the editor's talk page expressing my concerns. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that particular person does seem to have made it their mission to make sure nobody thinks bad things about Ms Hewson when reading this article. I'm very tempted to make the 2013 section read less like a Spiked press release, but I'm sure WmConq would just revert it all.

Still, good on you for removing the utterly superfluous "Media appearances" section. Truthteller88 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it took longer than I had suspected, but we finally got there with a violation of the three-revert rule. I'll invoke the procedure. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guess who removed your work when they though nobody was looking? Don't worry, I've put it all back. Truthteller88 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this content again. As our policy (emphasis mine) on sources for biographies of living persons states quite clearly : "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion .... When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." The only actual news source the removed content cited was the Daily Mail, which is well known for being unacceptable, and that's the only source that brings up this incident on a search. If something is sourced to the Mail and nothing else, chances are it's possibly not actually true. Anyone re-adding this context without an unimpeachable source (eg: two or more of BBC News, The Guardian, The Times, Financial Times or Daily Telegraph) can expect a block under the proviso "violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy" - this is your only warning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I'll add that well-sourced gossip is still gossip. Unless something is quite widespread and extraordinarily well-sourced, we don't report allegations and whatnot, or even criminal charges: we're not the news. If someone is convicted, that's another matter. In the meantime, I agree with Ritchie333. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see why this has been removed - this isn't gossip, this is something that happened, had the police involved and was reported by a reliable source i.e. The Times, albeit behind a paywall. Meanwhile, the ridiculously pro-Hewson stuff about her anti-Yewtree article is left unscathed, citation-free quotes and all. As far as I can see, it's not me or Legis who've breached WP policy. Then again, I suspect I'l get another telling off if I have another go at making this article factual... Truthteller88 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you'll get a telling off if you don't stay on the safe side of the BLP policy. If you "honestly" can't see it, you will simply have to accept that Ritchie333 and I have honestly interpreted the BLP to the best of our abilities, which is one of our sworn duties as administrators. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you can find something in a reliable source, doesn't mean it's a good idea to put it in a BLP - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavinia Woodward, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can both be as passive-aggressive as you like - the fact remains that you have instigated a criteria that you know we can't fulfill, because there's "only" one reliable source. You could have easily substituted the reliable source for the Times article, but nooooooooo... Truthteller88 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello Truthteller88, I'm coming here post your note at the Help Desk. Apart from the suggestion you've received at the Help Desk (to immediately stop tendentious editing here), I would also pre-empt the upcoming issue that given the undue weight given to the Controversy section in this biography, this looks more like an ATTACK page than a normal BLP. In the coming days, I would trim the section down considerably to adhere to our BLP policies. Work with us here and not without. Lourdes 01:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, there is now an unimpeachable source in respect of the harassment warning in the form of a High Court judgment - Hewson unsuccessfully challenged the police decision to issue it to her. See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/471.html Queens1798 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D.o.B?

[edit]

Can we have a date-of-birth, please? Valetude (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

…and any mention of her son? I don’t know if you’ve heard of him but he sings in a little band called U2. 82.14.247.28 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
…. A Hot Press writer said she was Bono’s mother, but it seems that he is mistaken. 82.14.247.28 (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbara_Hewson&oldid=1207499149"