Talk:Dominic Selwood

Catholicism
I have reverted the text because it is the biography of a living person and:

A number of the proposed contributions to this section are unsourced. For example, no source is given for statement that Selwood has published pieces "attacking Protestantism".

A number of the proposed contributions to this section do not conform to Wiki’s policies on NPOV because they debate the arguments in Selwood’s articles rather than reflect them. This section should be an accurate reflection of Selwood’s published work on the topic. For example, there should be no fresh arguments introduced about witch trials or about English bibles in the Reformation.

A number of the proposed contributions to this article do not conform to Wiki’s policies on Accuracy because they do not accurately reflect Selwood’s published views. For example, Selwood’s cited articles do not demand the reburial of King Alfred and King Richard III “at public expense”. Neither does the article cited say that the Protestant Reformation was “solely responsible” for the witch craze.

The editor's comment (26 Jan 2015) that refining his contribution is “POV pushing” does not confirm with Wiki’s policy on use of the term “POV pushing” which Wiki describes as “uncivil and pejorative”.

Pokkahontas (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My first degree focused on English medieval history, and I have remained up to speed on it. Dominic Selwood has apparently discovered that the entire historical consensus on the English Reformation is wrong. His articles, god knows how they were published, are simply complete rubbish. An article suggesting the Reformation was responsible for the Great Witch Craze, when witch-hunts predate it and most of the large witch-hunts were carried out by Catholics? An article suggesting Foxe's Book of Martyrs was simply propaganda? An article suggesting Thomas Cromwell, one of the leading figures of the Reformation, was a power-hungry weasel completely uninterested in religion, when in fact he commissioned the first great English-language Bible? For a Catholic, Dominic Selwood sure seems to have an obsession with writing hit-pieces on Protestants and Protestantism. I would call this "attacking Protestantism", but you're right that's unsourced. The key premise in each of his articles is demonstrably wrong, and I can list whole books, let alone piddly little Web 1.0 websites, that prove that. The views contradicting his own are not "fresh arguments", they are a centuries-old consensus. For Wikipedia to simply state his views on history would imply that they are legitimate. Especially when he has such an obvious anti-Protestant POV, this would be doing a massive disservice to its readers, and be extremely biased in favour of Selwood, violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Laboulaye (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There remain material factual inaccuracies and breaches of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:WWIN in the ‘Catholicism’ section of this Wiki page.


 * (1) The section currently includes a statement that Selwood’s article on Thomas Cromwell states that Thomas Cromwell “was comparable to the leaders of the Islamic State and the Taliban”. In fact, the article does not mention the “leaders” of Islamic State or the Taliban, and the article makes no personal comparison between any of them as individuals. The original article clearly states that Cromwell’s destruction of churches, art and books was comparable to the “iconoclasm of Islamic State or the Afghani Taliban”. There is a big difference. The current wording in the section is inaccurate, misleading, a misrepresentation, and should be removed.


 * (2) In neither of Selwood’s cited articles does Selwood call for the royal reburials to be “at public expense”. Please provide the source for this statement or remove it. (Funds are raised privately by the relevant cathedral, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-30216824).


 * (3) Selwood’s article does not state that Foxe’s Book of Martyrs “is simply propaganda”. The article states that putting the Book of Martyrs in every church without any reference to the earlier Protestant killing of Catholics is propaganda. The current working in this section is therefore inaccurate and misleading and should be removed.


 * (4) A Wiki section on an individual’s published views should set out those views, and only those views. If the views are controversial and have been criticized in the media or in the scholarly press, then a ‘Criticism’ section can be included on the Wiki page which can contain references to those published criticisms. It is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:WWIN for a Wiki editor to choose to undertake criticism himself by citing as facts other sources which are not in direct response to the individual’s (in this case, Selwood’s) published views. The following statements should accordingly be removed:


 * ‘However, the "Great Witch Craze" predates the Reformation by at least 150 years, and two of the largest sets of trials, the Fulda witch trials and the Trier witch trials, were carried out in Roman Catholic parishes.[16][17]’


 * ‘However, Cromwell privately commissioned the Great Bible of 1538, the first authorised version of the Bible in the English language. His involvement with it was such that it is alternatively known as "Cromwell's Bible".[20] ’


 * Pokkahontas (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You have not engaged in discussion or provided supporting evidence for the unsupported statements, which I have accordingly removed.
 * Pokkahontas (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove editor opinion (WP:NPOV)
 * Ataxxerxes (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit War with various editors suppressing details of Selwood's participation in Freemasonry
We were contacted by Oshwah about this Edit War who asked me and Eggishorn to start a discussion about how to edit the Wikipedia biography about Selwood being a Freemason. I responded to Oshwah and to Eggishorn. Eggishorn has not replied. Multiple editors have tried to suppress the truth about Selwood being a Freemason. I have corrected them. I hope for an decision from Oshwah about how this information is legitimately sourced and needs to be in the public domain.

Thanks for your message, Oshwah. I'm glad you reached out to me. Might I ask you why you reverted back to a version of the article which contained no reference to Dominic Selwood's membership of the Freemasons and his active participation in Masonic events? The links I have provided show more than circumstantial evidence of his involvement in Freemasonry. Dr Selwood is a journalist and published author: it is not an incidental detail - and it should be noted in the main body of the article. Initially, I linked to an online document written by Dr Selwood (published by his old school apparently). It looks as if that school has its own Masonic Lodge for old members. When that document was taken off-line someone edited the wikipedia entry to remove reference to Dr Selwood being a Freemason: the source no longer 'existed' - the claim could no longer be substantiated. I asked a friend of mine to tweet the same document on Twitter - but shortly afterwards a complaint was made that this violated privacy rules - the friend's account was blocked. I then decided to make the wordpress blog with the same information - but with all sensitive personal information blocked out other than the fact that Dr Selwood was organising a Masonic meeting. But this new link also proved contentious on here since a blog is not considered an authoritative source. Subsequent Google searches reveal that Dr Selwood is slated to appear at Masonic conferences to talk on his personal impressions of the 300th Anniversary celebrations of Freemasonry which he participated at. He is an advertised speaker, the links are genuine, a simple search within those links will see his name appear on the list of speakers. At the very least, then, these salient facts should be permitted to stand in his biography. No value judgment is made here on Wikipedia about Dr Selwood being a Freemason. (On the wordpress blog I criticise those who are editing the wikipedia page to make no reference to Dr Selwood's Masonic connections but on Wikipedia I appreciate that neutrality is important and I simply want those details to be mentioned in the biography. They are not incidental details: the Freemasons are a hugely influential organisation and belonging to them should be in the public domain of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia: especially if such details are available online. I am, of course, more than happy to enter into discussion with yourself as mediator in order to resolve a fractious dispute that wastes everybody's time. Many thanks. 202.239.38.179 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I simply reverted the edit because it appears that it has come under dispute by other editors who have concerns about the content you're changing. Have you started a discussion on the article's talk page? If not, you need to do this. We don't resolve disputes by repeatedly reverting each other back and fourth; we're supposed to follow proper dispute resolution protocol and discuss the dispute and come to an agreement with the others, then edit the article with the changes agreed upon. The information you provided here is definitely what should be added to the talk page. Then, let the discussion take its course. If you have any questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.122.131.153 (talk)


 * I have removed the blog reference as it is clear from all the editors' contributions and Wiki's policies that a Wordpress blog does not meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards for appropriate sources for Biographies of Living People. WP:Source, WP: Identifying Reliable Sources. I have removed the reference to the conference as there is no indication that the participants are freemasons. Some of the names are clearly not freemasons (e.g., ladies) and others are clearly there as expert academics. The assertion that this document unambiguously demonstrates that all names in it are freemasons is not substantiated. Callipygous999 (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)