Talk:John Tolkien (priest)

The inquiry document is not the only source. There are multiple reports of evidence from the inquiry and interviews with witnesses. Rathfelder (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the inquiry source is the source all the others are based upon. As the and a primary source it is inherently more reliable than the tabloid press. See Wp:RS Tonyinman (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

What you are relying on is the briefing put out before the hearing. The reports are of the testimony at the hearing. None of the sources I've used could be called the tabloid press. Rathfelder (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, if you read the sources I added, they are the transcripts from the inquiry - the primary source for which ALL the news reports, including the tabloid reports you are using have relied upon. Therefore, as per WP:RS it is best to use the primary source. Tonyinman (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."Rathfelder (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument above is a non sequitur. All your sources are based on the Inquiry transcripts. Therefore using the Inquiry transcripts is inherently more reliable that using cherry picked POV tabloid to support your determined effort to present a non-balanced and one-sided biased account on this biography page. If you disagree, by all means take the matter to RS notice board for consensus. That's all I have to say re the Inquiry transcripts the most reliable source. Tonyinman (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

How do you know they are based on the transcripts? Some appear to be based on interviews. Rathfelder (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Whose Opinion do you think was presented as fact? These are Carrie's allegations and accounts of what he did. Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Issues
I'm a fan of JRR Tolkien and follow articles about him or related to him. I had recently seen the article being littered with complaints about issues and decided to investigate.

Finding that a user named Rathfelder who was banned for COI and seems to be connected to the subject made edits to the "Child sexual abuse allegations", I have rewritten it. Some of it was already changed by another editor Tonyinman.

I found many claims unsubstantiated and unsourced, both by Rathfelder and Tonyinman. Tonyinman had also removed information that was properly sourced. So I rewrote the section. Also I've removed the primary sources as secondary sources and many of the claims are either not backed by them or the claims are unnecessarily lengthy and can be summed up in one or two sentences.

Also just a full disclosure so no one wrongly suspects or accuses me of being connected to Rathfelder, I'm not related to that user. If you think otherwise you can report me to a sockpuppet investigation. Thank you for your time. 59.91.227.166 (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Tonyinman your account seems to have become a SPA these past many months as you're solely dedicated to Tolkien. You also keep removing my content despite knowing that it's well-sourced and quoted. Why are you removing it? It seems your objective is to remove anything that might implicate Tolkien. Such biased behaviour is not allowed. 59.91.229.198 (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Your content additions are either not sourced at all, sourced by citations that on inspection that do not back up your claims or sourced by non WP:RS tabloid newspapers. By all means reads your content if it can be properly sourced. I note your unwarranted personal attack in the comment above. Be minded of WP:CIVIL in future. Tonyinman (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying the obvious is not a personal attack User:Tonyinman, you're obviously being biased about Tolkien and don't want anything that implicates him. Because your reverts are made under false pretexts.

Btw here are the sources and quotes for my edits:


 * My claim about the Counsel to the Inquiry Jacqueline Carey talking about the note against Tolkien, not the lawyers for the victims as you claimed, is backed by sources. The BBC source: Investigators said there is evidence to suggest Fr Tolkien admitted the abuse. The evidence emerged in a note uncovered during a week-long series of hearings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which is examining the Archdiocese of Birmingham's response to allegations made against four priests including Fr Tolkien. The note "on the face of it suggests that Fr Tolkien admitted those allegations, and was possibly sent for treatment," Jacqueline Carey, counsel to the inquiry, said. * Birmingham Post via PressReader also says the same thing: Jacqueline Carey, counsel to the inquiry said: "As part of Archbishop Couve de Murville's 1993 inquiries, he appears to have read a note from 1968 which alleged that Fr Tolkien had made some Boy Scouts strip naked. The actual note is not available but we have Archbishop Couve de Murville's note of the note, which on the face of it suggests that Fr Tolkien admitted those allegations, and was possibly sent for treatment. Aside from that treatment, it seems no action was taken in 1968, and certainly no action was taken by Archbishop Couve de Murville in 1993. Neither matter was reported to the authorities."


 * My claim about the original 1968 note not existing is backed up by IICSA, it doesn't say the 1993 note is missing, : As part of Archbishop Couve de Murville's own inquiries, he appears to have read a 1968 file note which alleged that Fr Tolkien had made some boy scouts strip naked. The actual note is not available but the Archbishop's note of the 1968 note, on the face of it, suggested that Fr Tolkien admitted these allegations (seeCHC000253_11) and was possibly sent for treatment.


 * You have falsely claimed that the lawyers for the victims talked about the note and the 1993 note was missing.


 * Your claim "and the inquiry were not able to examine it or assess it. Also, since the Archbishop had long since died, he could not be questioned." is not backed up by your own source, ie the BBC . There's no such statement in the source.

Please tell me how are my edits unsourced or not backed up, or try to point out any fallacy in what I've said or cited? It does clearly seem you have no actual argument. In fact I know you know they are well-cited and are still reverting them. As for tabloid, which source do you claim as tabloid and what's your evidence?

You should also stop resorting to your tricks of getting protection for the article to impose what you want. I will revert you no matter what. 61.2.80.208 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Your comments are indeed a personal attack WP:PA, and as such I shall not respond to them further. Be mindful of WP:CIVIL in future.
 * As I explained earlier very clearly, your content additions are either not sourced at all, sourced by citations that on inspection that do not back up your claims or sourced by non WP:RS tabloid newspapers. Your claims need to be backed by reliable 3rd party sources. Adding a source that does not back up a claim, or using unreliable sources, is not how Wikipedia works. You may find this guide [] useful. By all means re-add your content *if* it can be properly sourced using reliable sources, and the claims are not WP:Undue.
 * Regarding the page protection, the reasons for this are detailed in the article log - please WP:AGF There are no restrictions on you creating an account WP:Account and adding WP:NPOV / WP:GNG content using reliable sources WP:RS, as described above. Tonyinman (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)