Talk:Peter Scott (educationalist)

COI and addition of material about the Fredrics' case
I'm opening up the matter of recent edits for discussion, as COI has been alleged. I submit that the edits are relatively minor in nature and merely clarify issues already raised. They are well referenced with reliable resources and are of notability.--Lorifredrics (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing the WP:COI ? Mtking (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose the article be edited as follows, a more thorough and accurate account, irrespective of any alleged COI, which would be relevant only were the proposed edits deemed inaccurate or biased. --
 * In 2009 Scott tried to persuade the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) that an internet domain name—www.sirpeterscott.com—run by a former Kingston lecturer, Dr Howard Fredrics, constituted a trademark owned by him (Scott) and that Fredrics did not have the right to use it. The WIPO ruled against Scott.[5] Fredrics was subsequently convicted of harassing Scott via the website,[6] although the conviction was later set aside and he was then found to have 'no case to answer' in a re-trial.[7][8] This latter case later gained further notoriety following the raising of questions in the UK House of Commons by David Burrowes, MP, in which he offered the case as example of disproportionate use of police and prosecutorial resources at the behest of influential individuals and organizations.[9][10][11] --Lorifredrics (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest adding internal WP link to No_case_to_answer for clarity and accuracy.--Lorifredrics (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My feeling that this firstly it giving WP:UNDUE prominence to just one aspect of his life and secondly the "this latter..." part is not of any relevance to Peter Scott. So I oppose the change. Mtking (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me explain further. The relevance to Peter Scott is in relation to the subject of discussion, the use of prosecutorial/police powers by influential individuals and organizations to improperly advance the interests of those individuals/organizations.  In other words, a breach of the principle of equality before the law.  Burrowes refers to this case, which in fact involved charges lodged by Peter Scott, and which Burrowes seems to accept were taken forward because of the influence of the individual/organization behind the lodging of the charges.  He cites this case in order to demonstrate a disturbing pattern of cases of this sort.  That having  been said, I would have no problem with this additional information about Burrowes' speech placed in the WP article on Kingston University, though I suspect its defenders would object to such a placement.--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I visited this article after seeing this notice at ANI and was one of the editors who pruned back LoriFredrics' original addition. (I note that she has reverted attempts by three successive editors to prune it back.) In my view, it was very innaccurately described in the edit summary as "minor cleanup of wording and addition of reference to parliamentary questions". It added a considerable amount of overly detailed material and slant.. This is a short biographical article and this is a minor incident in Scott's career, although obviously a major one in Dr Fredrics' career. In her version nearly half of the article's prose section was about her husband and his grievance against Scott. I strongly oppose changing it back to that version, even in its "revised form", especially the synthetic assertion that the case gained political "significance/notoriety" based not on a reliable source which has described it as such but on the basis that an MP mentioned it in a speech in the House of Commons, the focus of which was about a completely different person and case. The proposed addition gives this incident undue weight  and it's pretty clear this article is being used as a coatrack to pursue a real life dispute. I feel that the current wording is the correct and proportionate one. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points. This brief biography should not be used as a springboard for the concerns of the Fredrics. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree on several points -- the speech may focus on a different case, but a substantial portion relates to the case of Howard Fredrics, and more importantly, both cases relate to the issue of wider importance of influential individuals exerting undue influence on policing and criminal justice. In how many other instances has a matter instigated by Peter Scott been mentioned on the floor of Parliament?  Secondly, I will be re-adding the matter of "no case to answer" which is a small edit that nonetheless corrects a factual error.  --Lorifredrics (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(OD) And your addition has been reverted. I'll confess I can't tell if your topic ban from being a contributor to these pages (not counting the talk pages of course) has been officially enacted yet, but in all honesty, you shouldn't be making changes to these pages regardless. If you feel something in the page needs to be changed or corrected, please make your case here. There are plenty of other editors who can make the changes, if needed. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been. Typically with a community ban discussion, there's generally at least a 24 hour wait (it hasn't been 24 hours yet) and if there seems to be a consensus to enact or decline the ban, then an uninvolved administrator will close the discussion and determine what consensus was. If the ban is enacted, then a notice will be given to the editor and a note will be placed in WP:RESTRICT. None of that has occurred yet. --  At am a  頭 19:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I placed this proposed edit before editors via the talk page, and no one addressed the substance of the edit, either pro or con. Instead, there was only efforts to lambast me for daring to edit this page, save for the matter of editors' objections to the inclusion of the other proposed edit concerning the Parliamentary speech. Given the lack of objection to my edit, I reasonably presumed it posed nothing contentious -- can't see how a factual correction could be contentious except to someone with a pre-ordained agenda.  Am therefore reverting my edit.--Lorifredrics (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are forgetting this edit, where I addressed the subject of the edit and clearly opposed it.Mtking (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize you'd intended to object to the no case to answer clause, as well as any expansion of the section for reasons of weighting. Nevertheless, I don't see how the edit about no case to answer adds further prominence to this event in Peter Scott's life, except as far as it actually should i.e. he instigated an important free speech case that set precedent for the right to post material of public interest and concern on a website without fear of being convicted of harassment for doing so, even if the information might embarrass someone of influence.


 * I have proposed above reasonable edits to include the correct disposition of the case of Howard Fredrics - [no case to answer].  The meaning of this under UK law is that the case is dismissed by the Court, normally following the presentation of the prosecution's case, without proceeding to complete trial, which would include presentation of defense arguments.  The common reason for this is that there is insufficient legal basis to bother having the defense argument put forth, as on the evidence, even when unrebutted, there is no case to answer.  This normally means that the conduct alleged by the prosecution cannot be considered to be a crime as a matter of law.  This is precisely what happened in the case of Howard Fredrics.  Logically speaking, when a Judge stops a prosecution in the middle of a trial, as is reported in the published reference, and as reported, when the Judge simply accepts the defense barrister's arguments that the conduct was done as a matter of "public concern" (aka in the public interest), it means that no crime has been committed and there is no case to answer.  Acquittal, different as a matter of law, occurs when there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  This usually means that there is some doubt as to whether or not the defendant did the actions accused of, NOT that the actions don't constitute a crime.  There was no question that Howard Fredrics set up a website containing certain information related to Kingston University and its officials.  Hence the Judge did not find him "not guilty," which would have  been an acquittal.  Not being a lawyer, however, even if I am wrong about whether or not "acquittal" can occur when a prosecution is halted midstream by a Judge, that does not change the fact that when a Judge does this prior to a defense argument being put forth, it means he/she has found "no case to answer."  Therefore there there is no harm in phrasing using the more specific term, "no case to answer" rather than "acquitted," which could mislead the reader into believing that Howard didn't create the site, rather than that the creation of the site was not found to be a crime.  I realize that this detail might seem insignificant to some editors, but it is not legally insignificant, and should therefore be reported accurately, especially since Magistrate Court proceedings are underreported in general, to the detriment of all, as described in the speech of David Burrowes, MP.  If there are editors who wish to suggest an alternative solution, for example, "acquitted by reasons of no case to answer," I would be most agreeable to such a wording, so long as it puts forth a complete and accurate portrayal of events.  Regarding the inclusion of the additional source, the Surrey Comet Article, there is no reason not to include it, as it is reliable and mainstream press reporting.  And it also includes the specific reporting of the fact that the Judge halted the prosecution midstream, accepting that there was, in effect, no case to answer.  It is therefore necessary to support the inclusion of the aforementioned issue.  I would expect a reasonable and fair response here, not one that is punitive, vindictive, or petty, and one that all can come to consensus on, rather than one that attempts to bully me into submission.--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I neglected to reiterate for purposes of clarity, the proposed addition of a reference to the original WIPO case decision document, which offers a much more accurate and complete reference source to what the issues were in the case and what was decided than a brief Times Higher Education article would offer. I think it is reasonable and inherently quite non-controversial to include it for those readers interested in reading more than a superficial account, while retaining the shorter article for those interested in a brief perusal.  --Lorifredrics (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
For all of above, I still don't see the need to included the last section "The lecturer was subsequently...", this is about Peter Scott and not Fredrics. I think it should be removed. Mtking (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Scott made a complaint to the police, convincing them to prosecute for harassment. His efforts and their ultimate failure are relevant here in my view.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how it works in the UK, are we sure what role Scott played in convincing them to prosecute, could it be the case that he approached the authorities to enquire if a crime had been committed and it was the authorities who said yes and decided to go to court? Do we have any reliable sources to confirm Scott's role in this as we are dealing with a WP:BLP ? Mt  king  (edits)  07:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That way of perceiving it isn't so different from what I am suggesting. In any event the relevance is that it was a matter of harassment of Scott.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nomoskedasticity. The current wording (version 439744072) is relevant and proportionate and supported by valid references. It should be neither cut nor expanded. I also see no problem with adding the WIPO decision as a reference, although I personally think it's superfluous. However, the addition of "no case to answer" is not supported by the references, nor is the contention that this case gained "political significance"/"notoriety" for the reasons I gave above. They should not be re-added. Re who "convinced" the police to prosecute the lecturer for harassing Scott is irrelevant and not quite accurate. Scott complained to the police of harassment by the lecturer, and the Crown Prosecution Service decided to prosecute. In any case, the current version in the WP article is simple, accurate, and not stating one way or another who convinced whom: "The lecturer was subsequently convicted of harassing Scott via the website, although the conviction was later set aside and he was then acquitted in a re-trial." Voceditenore (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see some attempts to actually address the content of the article through discussion. I still don't see the problem with including no case to answer.  If anyone needs to see a copy of the barrister's notes for the case, I can post them.  He reports very clearly that the Judge found 'no case to answer.'  But in any event, FWIW, the Police found no evidence of harassment but Scott used his influence to persuade the CPS to proceed nevertheless -- http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/harassment.jpg --Lorifredrics (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no reliable published secondary source which supports the inclusion. Unpublished primary sources such as a barrister's notes, letters, or even court records cannot be used in a biography of a living person. See the relevant policy: Biographies of living persons: Misuse of primary sources. And no, posting them on your husband's website does not constitute publication in a reliable secondary source. Once again, this is a biography of Peter Scott, not your husband. Nor is it an article on your husband's court cases, his dispute with his former employer, the British judicial system, or free speech laws. What is in there now is more than adequate for the subject of this article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore - Thanks for your explanation. Did what I wrote above about the meaning of no case to answer vs acquittal register with you?  The information in the article, in my view, provides enough to understand what happened if you approach it logically, thus confirming the fact of a finding of "no case to answer."  I understand completely, btw, what you're saying about WP:BLP issues and about the focus of the article.--Lorifredrics (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If it's not in the source, then we don't use "logic" to connect sources to come up with a novel conclusion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it registered with me, Lori. A reader might or might not make the inference that the judge had ruled "no case to answer". However, Wikipedia does not and cannot make explicit inferences based on that kind of synthesis and then present them as fact. It's part of the core policy of No original research. Please read though it carefully so you'll have a better understanding of the issue. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording of WIPO case section
I am at lost to see what was wrong with my changes, I was using wording from here about what the claim was about, my aim was to remove the very small sentence "The WIPO ruled against Scott", there is no need to build suspense in the article. You point about removing references also seems strange, references are there to verify claims, we have a link to the WIPO ruling, the other ref is not providing anything. Mt king  (edits)  07:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The secondary source is to be preferred over the primary. The sentence you constructed was hard to read and ungrammatical.  I don't want to make a big deal about it -- I simply disagreed that it was an improvement -- but I do think we should follow the secondary source (and certainly not delete it).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had a second attempt, please let me know if you would like me to make any changes. Mt  king  (edits)  09:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's an improvement (though at least it reads properly). We shouldn't quote the primary source, we should convey what is in the secondary source.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Be all that it may, I did change Mtking's latest version "in which Scott has rights to" to "to which Scott has the rights" which is clearer and somewhat more grammatical. I imagine there were a fair number of edit conflicts. I was restructuring the article to put the events, posts held etc. in chronological order. It had rather oddly worked backwards from the present to his undergraduate days at Oxford and then abruptly jumped forward to the 2007 website case. Voceditenore (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The old version was a two part piece that unnecessary built suspense into the prose, since the outcome is known we don't need to do that. As for the quote WP:PRIMARY does allow for the use them as it is just a "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify" - it is listed at point 5 A on the complaint section of the PDF. Mt  king  (edits)  10:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing the "suspense" is fine. But I will emphasize that we should give precedence to the secondary source here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you change it ? Mt  king  (edits)  10:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding the word "unsuccessfully" to the original wording would do the trick: "In 2009 Scott tried unsuccessfully to persuade..." I'm not convinced by the notion that "suspense" was a problem, but if it is then a simple fix is possible.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But "complaint" is the terminology that the secondly source uses, they don't use "persuade". Mt king  (edits)  10:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is to avoid quoting primary sources when there is a secondary source to use. This doesn't mean that we need to quote from the secondary source.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that since others are using the phrase "complaint" and not "persuade" it is better that this does two. Mt  king  (edits)  23:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Educationalist?
Yes, it is a word, but it is a grammatical horror and none of the citations included in the article actually describe him as such. I am thinking of requesting a move to Peter Scott (educator) or something similar, but if I can get a cogent argument in favor of retaining the current title, I will refrain from the move request. Any takers?  Horologium  (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I originally used Peter Scott (academic). I can't remember who moved it to (educationalist); I probably should have put up more of a fuss.  Perhaps put it back to (academic)?   Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that (academic) is the better choice as a disambiguator per Category:Academics. Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)