Talk:British Post Office scandal

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CapsuleBot (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 15 January 2024 (Page featured on Top 25 Report (Dec 31, 2023)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A misleading summary statistic?

In the overview, we have:

"Between 1991 and 2015, there were 918 successful prosecutions."

While this is no doubt true (and quoted verbatim by the Doughty Street resource), those before 1999 cannot be because of Horizon, because that had not been rolled out.

The detail in https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/658605/response/1576986/attach/4/FOI2020%2000186%20FOI%20Request%20Response.pdf tells the true story: that between 1991 and 1997 the rate of prosecutions per year was low, that is, a maximum of 10 in 1997. Between 1999 and 2012, between 37 and 78 prosecutions were made per year.

I believe it detracts from the argument to quote the https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk/post/102gtzh/private-prosecutions-after-the-post-office-debacle report as the pre-1999 numbers are not immediately relevant, unless for comparison reasons. --Matt Westwood 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see the point and it is powerful. However, there are complications in the law. Previous attempts in the article to show how these seemingly arcane but really quite germane matters fed into the positions and actions taken by the Post Office, the lawyers, the judges and the courts caused the article to be too bulky and too confusing. This is a very complex case; it is a mystery to me that within Wikipedia's world it remains of low importance. The biggest miscarriage in British legal history, involving thousands of victims over a 20 year period, but it is rated as of low importance by the WikiProjects Law & United Kingdom!
Prior to 1999 it was necessary to prove that a computer was operating properly and was not used improperly before any statement in a document produced by the computer could be admitted in evidence. After that date the law changed to put the onus on the other side to show that the computer was not operating properly (see https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/computer-records-evidence). Some say that is virtually impossible. There remain other references to this seemingly minor cause in the article. Paul Marshall's points 1&2, now at para 3 of the article, allude to this, as does the single sentence of paragraph 4.4. To set it all out in a way that is acceptable to Wikipedia is not easy.
None of that should be taken to mean that I do not agree with the recent edits. They were needed. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was the amendment to section 69 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act, made by the government in 1999 as recommended by the Law Commission a year or two earlier. Back then, the concern was that people were getting off speeding offences by insisting that the Police prove that their speed monitoring equipment was working properly, and the law was changed so that courts had to assume "mechanical equipment" (which subsequently came to include computer systems) was working correctly, unless the defendant could prove otherwise. A classic instance of both lawyers and politicans trying to solve the small problem under their nose without thinking about the wider and future implications. MapReader (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this sentence in the article confusing. As the article is about the Horizon scandal, wouldn't it be more useful to give the number of prosecutions related to Horizon, with perhaps just a mention of earlier prosecutions to show that they increased after Horizon? The problem is that it is impossible to say from just the Whatdotheyknow figures. Were any post 1999 prosecutions related to non-Horizon matters? Were the 104 "unknown dates" evenly spread from 1991-2015 or were they all from earlier years? I have changed the sentence slightly but I still think it could be better. Maybe there are some more comprehensive figures somewhere. Southdevonian (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Individual cases'?

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the content of the current 'Individual cases' section?

It isn't clear why intimate personal details of just these five, of the 700+ people involved in the scandal, have been highlighted this way. Without the context for this specific selection being explained and reliably sourced in the article, this is a WP:SYNTH selection and these individuals are being given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and attention at the expense of those not mentioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. These examples would be fine in a newspaper or magazine article but don't belong in the encyclopedia. -- Wire723 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this section per the legitimate policy-based concerns raised here. If content from this section is to be included elsewhere in the main article text on a case-by-case basis (taking into account WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT as mentioned by DeFacto above) then that may be a better way forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the original Computer Weekly article, the court case, and the current ITV drama focus in on a number of cases, and it is inevitable that these have therefore attracted most of the attention. The key is that the article fully conforms with BLP and privacy policies, and focuses on the scale and breadth of the scandal rather than getting too deeply into a handful of cases. Nevertheless some illustration of the personal stories behind the scandal with short summaries, using (only) information already widely published, would be useful for the reader, I suggest? MapReader (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should also remember that the the original Computer Weekly article was produced in the context of the true scale of the prosecutions not being known, coupled with the reluctance of some still-serving SPMs to go on the record. I do think, however, that it is entirely legitimate to highlight selected individual cases in order to clarify the experiences of the SPMs. We're not talking about hundreds of people wrongly being given out incorrect parking or speeding fines here, but rather the systematic destruction of lives in various different ways. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the arguments made to remove a large quantity of well-referenced text based on WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE are dubious and misuses of both policies. Editors are in danger of inventing their own policies.
I don't see how WP:SYNTH particularly applies. These are all clearly cases related to the overall article. We are not imputing or inferring anything extra, just noting what reliable sources say about these individual cases. WP:SYNTH starts Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. We are not doing that. There is no additional conclusion created here.
I don't think WP:UNDUE generally applies because we are following the reliable source reporting that has talked at length about these individual cases. WP:UNDUE talks about the views of tiny minorities and gives the example of flat earthers. We're not dealing with anything like that here. No-one is denying the experiences of these individual cases. If a case can be made that individual examples are WP:UNDUE, they can be removed on an individual basis, but a blanket argument is unconvincing.
There is no Wikipedia policy that I am aware of that says example cases, when well supported by reliable sources, should not be given.
DeFacto expresses a concern about those not mentioned. If there is RS-supported content about others, then they can be added. That's not a reason to remove content already here (WP:WIP applies). I highly doubt that individuals affected by this scandal are going to be up in arms that they haven't been mentioned in a Wikipedia article. I suspect they would be happier that we are giving real examples, rather than chopping the article to hide these discussions of how the scandal affected people! There is no policy-based argument that says we can only give examples if we mention all 700+ victims. Bondegezou (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou, I disagree. The selection implies that these are typical examples. Without cites to sources presenting these specific examples in a similar context, and as as typical examples, we are falling foul of WP:SYNTH. That these individual cases are covered in separate sources does not give them due weight when combined into this single context as none of them individually have due weight.
Cases presented as typical examples in our article need to be supported by sources discussing the scandal and providing these specific cases as their typical examples too. Otherwise we are performing OR/SYNTH in grouping them as typical examples. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto The text nowhere claimed these are typical examples. Your argument makes no sense. Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou, if they are not being given as typical examples, what are they being given as? A random bunch of context-free cases, cherry-picked from 'reliable sources', has no place in an encyclopaedic article. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are individual cases that reliable sources have talked about; ergo, so should we. (Why are you putting reliable sources in scare quotes?) Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to remember that the news media, even those accepted by Wikipedia as 'reliable sources', will be trawling their contacts, social media, moles, whistle-blowers, etc., to find the cases most likely to trigger public uproar and maximise indignation, so are not a good source for plucking typical examples from. That is why the context behind the selection of examples is important and why a list compiled this way conflicts with WP:SYNTH. We need a list that is sourced as a whole list (or lists selected as whole lists) and with which there is the context for selection given. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be re-writing what we define as reliable sources. As to reliable sources providing "whole lists", do you mean like these: [1], [2]? Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather surprised at the line of argument that seems to be pursued here, i.e. that we have to provide evidence that the individual cases are "typical." As I said above, this scandal has detrimentally affected a great number of individuals in various different ways. The Post Office chose to pursue different cases differently, even cases that ostensibly seem similar. Alan Bates was forced out, but not prosecuted or sued; Lee Castleton was sued, while others faced criminal prosecutions; Martin Griffiths and three others committed suicide. Individual circumstances varied widely. "Typical" did not and does not exist, and the previously included individual cases were not presented as such, but rather reflected the range of experiences. We should be building on that, not gaming the system to remove them for no rational reason. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those new to this discussion, this is the key edit. Should that content have been left or removed? Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sought more input on the interpretation of WP:SYNTH from the relevant noticeboard at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Post_Office_scandal. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That hasn't attracted any apparent attention yet, perhaps we need an RfC to help reach a sound policy-based consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing practice elsewhere on Wikipedia, I note similar sections on individual cases, seemingly written in a similar way, exist in the following articles: Focus E15, Same-sex marriage in Brazil, Concordia College and University, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Victoria, Political abuse of psychiatry in Russia, Aboriginal deaths in custody, Anti-gay purges in Chechnya, ShotSpotter, and Cases of political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Again, I don't see any policy objection to such content. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who deleted the information, I have no objection to it being re-inserted, especially as it seems most editors support inclusion. Just thought we should have consensus on the talk page before this information is added to avoid any edit-warring. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't the first person to delete it, and I'm still not convinced that we have a policy-based consensus that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I re-inserted the material, GnocchiFan, but DeFacto re-removed it.
Can I get a show of hands? Does anyone else still agree with DeFacto’s position? Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the extent that the section as it is does not add anything useful to the article. How does a sentence such as "Noel Thomas, a man who had worked for the Royal Mail for 42 years, went to prison as a result of the errors" add anything, when the article has already said that people went to prison? If they must be mentioned I think it would be better to do so in the text of the article, rather than listing in a separate section. For example those cases that are featured in the recent TV drama could be discussed in the dramatisation section. Southdevonian (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would enhance the article is you added under the dramatisation section some of the examples they highlighted. These actors and the people they represent are happy with the publicity and the article could do with examples of the social impact of the issue on these ordinary people, to explain, the dramatisation selected a few cases as representations, Noel Thomas, Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton and Martin Griffiths. If they consider them typical and cover most aspects of the case, I see no reason why we cannot do the same. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support @Ânes-pur-sàng's and @Southdevonian's suggestion as the examples would be those selected for the TV dramatisation, and that context would make their selection WP:SYNTH compliant. -- DeFacto (talk). -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ânes-pur-sàng, all the cases previously named had, as far as I can see, agreed to talk to the media concerned and had done so to publicise the issues. I am unclear why only the ones featured in a drama should then be mentioned…?
DeFacto, I remain unclear how you think any of the text at WP:SYNTH applies here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the drama does not enhance the article by much, but by adding an explanation of the four main cases, it will add a personal aspect that I find is missing and explain that the drama is based on real people, not pure fiction. Try it, then we can see if there are any other cases that are so different that they warrant a mention and whether it is a reasonably balanced group. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about a section with the title "Victims" - brief introduction and then details of some people explaining why they are highlighted, for example "X gave an interview to the BBC in which they recounted how they went to prison/were bankrupted..." "Y, who featured in the TV drama..."? Southdevonian (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am, to be honest, confused how this would be differ substantially from the section that was removed and which, upthread, you said "does not add anything useful to the article"? Could you or Ânes-pur-sàng try an edit, or flesh out further what you mean? Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

There were some interesting stats in the closing caption of

  • 3,500 people were affected (presumably: had to repay bogus losses)
  • 700 convictions
  • only 93 convictions overturned to date
  • 18 of the 555 litigants have died without compensation

I think it would be worth including these - perhaps in a side bar - in the article, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should also note at least four suicides. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Crozier

Shouldn't Adam Crozier be mentioned (other than as currently in the title of a source) in the article? Our article on him has a paragraph about the scandal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article isn't in great shape

Hate to say it, but this subject deserves a better article. It's unwieldy, cluttered, has no cohesive narrative, and it's generally hard to read.

For example, the first section is called "Overview". Articles shouldn't have overview sections. The lead is the overview. So there's already a lump of redundancy and a confusing information hierarchy right from the beginning of the article body.

I will attempt to do some work on it myself, but I wanted to raise these issues here first, in case it motivates anyone to help out... Popcornfud (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m inclined to agree. But that’s pretty common, for a story that suddenly breaks into public view - suddenly a shedload of editors take interest and tons of individual edits deliver a dog’s dinner with no coherence or structure. My experience is that this can’t be put right, now. When the story drops off the front pages, a few editors can return to the article and then make it shipshape. MapReader (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, though, I've checked in on this article a few times over the last couple of years and it seemed to have all the same problems. Popcornfud (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. I only got as far as the overview. Is it really necessary to list all the cases cited in the various different court cases and then have a reference for each? Even though you can hide the lists, it adds massively to the references. Southdevonian (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If articles are not supposed to have overview sections, would it be possible to replace the overview section with a timeline? Southdevonian (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timelines are generally discouraged on (English) Wikipedia - the presence of a timeline can make people add every minor event (non-encyclopedic content), while also being in such a list format that people tend to not want to expand on the most important parts where relevant (not including encyclopedic content). And it's rarely the best way to present information. There is no one way to structure and format an article, but it should be cohesive and the best way to effectively present the relevant information. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bondegezou: Re-naming the Overview section to "Timeline of events" without changing the content isn't a better header, nor an improvement to content. Perhaps you can contribute to discussing improvements. Kingsif (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted at length to this Talk page, discussing improvements. I would’ve thought other editors were probably quite tired of me banging on by now! Bondegezou (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convictions

Just related to the general structure and content of the article, I am not a lawyer but I do have some experience of legal proceedings. I'm struck by how many people were convicted while so few prosecutions have been quashed. Clearly, more convictions may be quashed - as he article notes. It seems, though, that a large number of those convicted pled guilty. I am more than aware that sometimes people who are not guilty of an offence plead guilty for various reasons, but some of these people went to prison and it is unusual that people should plead guilty to a charge so serious as to send them to prison when they believe they are not guilty. This is a material point, because the thrust of the article is that the convictions are wrong. This might be just my reading, and I don't mean to disrespect anyone wrongly convicted. But I do think that if there are to be so many references to wrongful convictions then there should be some references to guilty pleas since it is clearly very hard to overturn a verdict where there was a guilty plea. Finally, it is perfectly possible that other evidence of fraud was present in those cases where there was a guilty plea; we simply don't know. The number of people convicted of dishonesty did go up sharply after the introduction of the system, but that does not necessarily point towards the system itself; there is sometimes an uptick in fraud when a large new system, particularly with known faults, is introduced into any large organisation. I also find it a bit odd that there is no mention of the executives who came before the Paula Vennells; it's easy to see Vennell's liability, but why no mention of the executives in charge while the actual problems unfolded? Just some thoughts as I am listening to the latest news on the radio today. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of American English spellings in articles with a British subject

This article uses the American spelling "judgment" throughout. While I accept that an American legal case (e.g. Roe v Wade) should use that spelling, I really think we should stick with British English spellings in articles that are solely about English Law legal cases so can we use judgement, please? LumpiSpoerl (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling "judgment" is used in the UK in an official legal context, for example here [3] and here [4]. Southdevonian (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting point (still very much in learning mode here). Do you think article subjects should conform to the local rules which apply to subject? If no, prob US English best for everything. Not sure, though. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should use British spellings. WP:ENGVAR refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you repeatedly use EN-US spelling then you run the risk of replicating the problems that the Scots Wikipedia continues to have. EN-US and EN-GB are not the same language and it is not merely a matter of variant spelling. To use EN-US in a EN-GB context goes against the general objectives of Wikipedia and promotes a lack of methodical fact checking. Simplistically, searching for "color" will not match with "colour" which might well ensure that Wikipedians miss valuable and germane information. In matters of poetry, "color" and "colour" appear to rhyme differently which could lead to particular allusions that are relevant to EN-GB being missed by a first language EN-US Editor. EN-US is not "best for everything". EN-US varies in grammar and militates against parallel variation within EN-GB grammar that is part of British Culture. MOS:TIES indicates the direction of travel here. It is not merely a matter of switching around a few spellings and hoping for the best. While Wikipedia is not original research, the failure to use EN-GB in an EN-GB context can have the unreasonable outcome of deterring the Reader from further enquiry or reasearch on their own accord. 77.97.140.58 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@77.97.140.58 I agree. In the case of headings and proper nouns (e.g. color or Pearl Harbor vs Sydney Harbour Bridge) it is worth standardising or keeping the original.
However, when it comes to details such as this, English Law makes judgements whereas U.S. courts make judgments.
The final point about retaining interest is also pertinent as an article more likely to interest readers from one particular English-speaking region seems to be better served by using the spelling rules of that region. LumpiSpoerl (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree about the distinctive use of judgement/judgment. The words are, however, not absolutely interchangeable. One is the ability to form a opinion and the other is distinctly a formed legal opinion. Pedantic thought it is, that is an importance difference. The US Court System, for whatever reasons, does not make that distinction while the UK Court System does. Which is then part of the distinctive regional character for EN-GB and points to a substantive difference between UK and US Legal processes. Failure to recognise that can lead to inadvertent interpretation of reference material when reading - particularly older - documents. Leading to misinformation; which, is the general point being made about the Scots Wikipedia. (Which is an example of how the process can run to an extreme not pearl clutching about the EN-GB being marginalised.) 77.97.140.58 (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank heavens we got there at last. We, in the UK, all make judgements, including judges when they are e.g. gardening. Only courts hand down hand down Judgments. Two different words Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structural issues and general format unsuitability

To combine the majority of the discussions at this talkpage, there are clear issues with how this article presents the information. A large part of the problems stem from the fact that the "British Post Office scandal" has quite a large scope. The article covers: the issues with the Post Office/Horizon system; the legal cases convicting sub-postmasters and other punishments they faced; the resulting legal fight by the sub-postmasters; the Post Office cover-up; the public scandal when the various aforementioned information became news. The article does not particularly well cover the actual scandal, aftermath of legal cases, and the human impact, but one would imagine they are in scope. That's a lot of different things, each of which are typically handled slightly differently in how the articles on them are written.

One solution would be to split the article. It goes into particular depth on legal cases, which are in increasingly-confusingly-layered subsections and written as overall articles of legal cases seem to be. Those could be split and given summaries here, in prose more conventional to event articles - which would also reduce the length.

I have some experience contributing to articles that deal with a mix of related events, legal cases, scandals (e.g. David Whiting, Rubiales affair), so I know it's possible to get it all into one in a more readable fashion than this article currently stands as.

In hoping not to need a split discussion or RfC, I have some ideas on improvements, for your discussion: Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Court cases

Besides being in their own hard-to-parse format, these subsections present a mix of Post Office going after sub-postmasters in court, and vice versa, kind of mixed in together. This makes understanding the situation more difficult. Splits could be to one article for the Post Office going after people (Court cases brought by the British Post Office against sub-postmasters - titles do not have to be short) or in various articles for each case that passes relevant notability criteria. The cases by Bates and others brought against the Post Office should be handled separately: I think Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd is more than suitable for its own article, while the others may be best put together in an article about Hamilton & Others and Post Office Ltd featuring the 2019 civil appeals as Background. I note that Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3) already exists, but does not seem to be in-line mentioned anywhere in this article. That's, really, so bad. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a start I have removed the lists of cases cited, which were not necessary. If anyone wants to know what cases were cited they can look at the judgments. If anyone wants to create a "List of cases cited in Post Office court cases" article they can do so. Southdevonian (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite the lead

The lead/lede starts of decently - though reducing everything to just the miscarriage of justice is non-indicative of the scope - but then gives a prose timeline (leads should prioritise relevance, not chronology) that also manages to highlight some of the most irrelevant details of the whole scenario. Why is the DSS one of the first things mentioned when it is barely a footnote in the background of the system that provoked the main issue, for the first example. We should better label the scope in the opening paragraph. And we should discuss to identify the most important and relevant parts of the whole thing to summarise in the lead. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-work the Horizon IT system section

Another confusing layer of sub-sections is that the mediation scheme, while provoked by the system causing the Post Office to act badly, is not part of the Horizon system. Why is it under here? The Second Sight reports are also more about how the Post Office was effectively ignoring the problems, at least how the subsection makes it sound, not about the system itself. Should that be under here? But the main issue is that this section is written like its own article. It has an intro to what the system is and its development (not directly relevant), then various long summaries of the issues and reports, before we even get to the first subsection. Perhaps it would be simplest to split this whole section out to a Horizon (IT system) article, but then there are those questions of what belongs as subsections. Decisions about what information belongs where is needed, to resolve the excessive detail that in parts looks like a promotion for the system, as well as the attempts at presenting a chronology that is weak due to repetition and lack "cause and effect". Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth adding discussion of how Horizon caused the accounting issues? I'm looking for a source that meets appropriate thresholds. That might belong here, at least in brief.
I'd suggest that Horizon (as a blanket label for Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online, HNG-X and HNG-A) merits a page on its own. The Judgment in Alan Bates and Others and Post Office Limited ([2019] EWHC 3408 (QB)) is an intimidating document, but Appendix 2 lists 29 separate bugs that had different impacts on the reliability of the system. The processes by which Horizon failed are discussed in a few blogs but as yet I've not found anything that spells out what was intended and what actually happened on the ground. The Therac-25 is a reasonable prototype for explaining software faults and a few lines here and a Horizon (IT system) page there could cover the rest. I would argue that having one's own judicial inquiry [5]https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ probably meets the notability threshold. C37H67NO13 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information would probably belong in detail at a standalone and in brief at this article, where its presence aids understanding of the topic. Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rework the timeline

The timeline should ideally be a chronological series of events, but the various paragraphs tend to focus on topics. While paragraphs here usually start with a date, they give information that spans different periods. It may be better to remove stuff which doesn't serve the narrative, e.g. information on the corporate history of ICL / Fujitsu, or the structure of Royal Mail. Chumpih t 06:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also ends in 2021. Should it also be retitled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative would be to rewrite the intro, incorporating some of the timeline text. I think a long and complex article like this can support a longer intro. Also there are now some good sources that give an overview of the subject, rather than using so many different sources in the intro. I actually prefer intros without refs (everything referenced in the text) but the manual of style says either way is fine - intros with or without refs. Southdevonian (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remembering of course, that, per WP:LEAD, the lead (intro) should only summarise the most important points already made in the article body, and as it should not contain anything that needs sourcing, should not generally need sources in it. I think they should be avoided as they add unnecessary clutter. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I didn't mention anything to do with that section because I figured we'd just delete it when we knew all relevant information was in the article. As an overview that was renamed to timeline, it doesn't belong at all. Just need to make sure the lead is good. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. There are a few well-cited points in this section that don't appear elsewhere in the article - the citations themselves could be considered valuable. But unless we have a chronology befitting the title Timeline, this section is just a mess that should go. Chumpih t 05:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate article focus

As has been mentioned in other discussions, this article has a lot of intricate information about computers and court cases, but none of that conveys why it became a scandal. If the main point of this article is a scandal as the name suggests, why is any information about that shuffled into Reactions and Aftermath sections, rather than being the main focus. The inquiries and investigations into the Post Office aren't merely reactions. I don't know when the article was created, but it seems that it likely began life as an article on the Post Office taking sub-postmasters to court and everything that has come out since has been poorly tacked-on. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was started in draft in March 2015 and published, pretty, much unchanged, in July 2016 (looking like this), when the short lede was mostly comprised of:

Horizon is the name for a computer system used by part of the United Kingdom's postal service, Post Office Ltd. It has come under criticism since at least 2013 for errors in the system which, according to press reports, may have caused the loss of dozens of jobs, unnecessary prison sentences, bankruptcies and one documented suicide.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally called Horizon (IT system) and only switched to Post Office scandal in June 2021. Southdevonian (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the scandal should have been a new article rather than Frankenstein-ing this together. At least we know why it is such a mess. Realistically we have two options: discussion about good content for inclusion and how it should be written, or a few users BOLDly making many large changes and hoping it turns out better. There isn't a time limit on improving articles, but with the massive uptick in pageviews it would be nice to get this in shape. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add more encyclopedic information about the human impact and similar

We are an encyclopedia, and some people seem to think that means we must be cold and only present the boring "X happened then Y happened". Encyclopedias have always had a duty to convey how events were experienced - how people during and after reacted to what happened, not just what happened. That's another issue with the Reactions section... it's just other stuff that happened. Besides this, there is a serious lack of information about what happened... to the sub-postmasters despite that being half the reason there's a scandal (Post Office doing such a thing to them being the other half) - we obviously cannot cover everyone, and per a discussion above it looks like there used to be lengthy sections on certain individual sub-postmasters, which is also not appropriate. An overview, though, seems necessary. And it's probably what a lot of readers are looking for, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could achieve that by restoring the Individual cases section that was in the article for 7+ years, but removed last month. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time to drop that stick, perhaps? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a cohesive voice

It also seems evident that this article was written by a mix of editors from the legal cases sphere, and what I would say were relatively inexperienced editors - writing things in short chronology paragraphs and shoving every new development into Reactions, unsure of a format to suit the article. This also means that the style of writing shifts considerably from section to section, which makes it more of a slog if a reader is going through the whole thing top to bottom. I think this issue still warrants discussion but has a simpler solution: we could ask WP:GOCE to run through it as a priority. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put a bit of structure in the Horizon section and alter some of the headings, but then realised that there was now a mediation and compensation section and then another compensation section so it probably didn't help much.
I agree that, because of the history of the article, the Horizon section is too prominent and the inquiry etc should not be added on as a reaction but be given more weight. What is the actual scandal? The prosecution of innocent people because the Post Office wouldn't admit that they had a software problem? Plus the time it has taken to try and put it right?
How about looking at it in a different way? Say you had a blank screen - how would you organise the article?
I think I would go for a roughly chronological approach:
Background section covering the rolling out of Horizon and maybe the Second Sight Reports
Prosecutions
JFSA and civil action
Appeals
Inquiry
Media coverage Southdevonian (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a law student's case notes.

It needs cutting down, dramatically. As it is, it surely serves almost no readers who visit it. I've read Wikipedia entries on quantum physics topics that were more layman-friendly than this one. 92.5.200.8 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I agree. Southdevonian (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In particular, the lead section of any article is supposed to be a summary and overview of the topic. That this is followed by a second section, originally “overview” and now “timeline of events”, doing the same job at slightly greater length, is very unhelpful. And indeed wrong. I would suggest the entire “timeline” section needs deleting, anything critical written into the lead where it isn’t already covered, and then the body start by setting out the story, chronologically. MapReader (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on combining the intro and timeline - paragraph by paragraph. Southdevonian (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timelines don't belong, please don't waste your time making one! Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant I was removing the Timeline and then feeding some of it into the intro. The Timeline is now gone, but still have some work to do on expanding the intro. Southdevonian (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post Office and Fujitsu conduct

I removed this because the last thing the article needs at the moment is another section of "law student's case notes" and the references were not formatted. If anyone wants to reduce it to a properly referenced and formatted paragraph and put it somewhere in the Court section then go ahead. Southdevonian (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This material comes from the personal website of a lawyer who is commenting on the public inquiry. So it is not a good source, and this article is not the place to add lengthy commentaries on the evidence heard by the inquiry. It is better to wait until the inquiry publishes a report, or to have only very brief summaries - however important the evidence might turn out to be. And references should be formatted, not bare urls. Southdevonian (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Reference this long standing article on WP: National Federation of SubPostmasters MapReader (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Toss a coin? With a footnote explaining the alternative? Southdevonian (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea(!) I did, and it was heads, so we use the hyphen. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 22:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Horizon IT system

Same section, or similar passages, in twice. It needs a good proofread to see what's been duplicated word for word . 2A00:23C8:4F06:4F01:196D:D556:26BF:6412 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find one sentence that duplicated information. Perhaps you could point out any other passages. Southdevonian (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section should mention that no prosecutions have been made.

The lead section doesn't mention that no prosecutions have been made against those responsible for the convictions. It is one of the key facts about the topic, so shouldn't it be mentioned in the lead section? It currently mentions that the Post Office is being investigated, and that a public inquiry is ongoing. That doesn't mean that readers would know that no prosecutions have been made. Opok2021 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteworthy that the Met have opened an investigation, not that - at this stage - they haven't made arrests. As updates become public they can be added. Prosecution of witnesses, etc., does not usually follow overturning of convictions although it does happen sometimes, so it is not an important point in this case. Certainly not for the intro. Southdevonian (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reference-free introduction

  • @Mikeblas: The manual of style says introductions can have refs or be ref-free, if everything is referenced in text. I prefer ref-free intros, so does at least one other editor here. When I started working on the intro I put in two references of articles that summarised the case - one from the BBC and one from the Guardian. I then took them out to keep the intro ref-free. All the text is referenced in the body of the article, so it doesn't matter if those particular refs don't appear elsewhere in the article. Or you can always find a place for them if you think they are worth keeping.

Southdevonian (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because you removed the "Guardianexplain" reference definition which is used elsewhere in the article. Removing the definition left the article with undefined reference errors, and placed it in the Category:Pages with broken reference names error tracking category. You've now gone and recreated that error, so the article again has referencing problems.
Why did you restore the undefined reference condition?
You also removed the "Public hearing session: Preliminary Hearing on List of Issues", "Human Impact Hearings announced by Chair for February & March 2022", "Post Office scandal ruined lives, inquiry hears ", "Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Statement of Approach 004", and "Post Office Inquiry begins phase three as compensation delays continue" references ... as well as the prose that explains the timeline of these inquiries.
MOS:CITELEAD does not say there's a simple choice. Instead, it says that the lead must conform to the verifiability guideline, like everything else; but might be omitted if they're redundant. The article is quite long and involved, but I'm not seeing the specific text you deleted elsewhere in the article. For sure, the "hearing on list of issues", "human impact hearings", and "phase three" references aren't repeated. These inquiries don't seem to be mentioned. I did find the "Approach 004" reference, though.
I don't think its appropriate to delete the referenced prose descriptive of the timeline altogether. And it's certainly not right to re-introduce the referencing error that I fixed to the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not about these edits, but for reference, doesn't the MOS (or maybe V) advise that if there is particularly controversial information (or that which could be easily challenged) in the lead then it is preferred for this to be referenced in-line (despite the widespread preference for ref-free leads)? Do we have any such information in the lead? Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't understand your question. I don't think there's widespread preference for ref-free leads in general, and I don't see that concensus built here specifically, either.
    [WP:MOSLEAD]] says "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." Here, the lead section is getting larger than that, so maybe the best idea is to restore that trimmed paragraph, including its references, and place it later in the article. That paragraph tells an important part of this story, and it was severely trimmed because someone removing references became a priority. I strongly disagree with that.
    If you can clarify your question, I can try to answer it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can restate my simple question, if it helps. Remember how I started with Not about these edits, so please don't start debate over the content removal. I asked: Do we have any such [particularly controversial or that which could be easily challenged] information in the lead?
    As for widespread preference for ref-free leads, your quote from the MOS outright says this is the case. Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification! Well, sure. There are facts and figures (amount of the settlement, number of postmasters, the timeline itself, the backing or responsible parties, ...) There's some omission, too. For examples: "courts began to quash convictions" (when? how many?) implies that they're all done. Later in the article we learn less than 20% have been remedied. The dates don't line up, or at least aren't clear in scope; "between 1999 and 2015", then "in 2019" and "in December 2020" and "in April 2021" and "in September 2020". "from campaigners" is vague, and only one "campaign" is mentioned in the article body.
    Normally, references bolster statements so that they can be quickly checked to sort out confusion. That's not here.
    The lede has grown to six paragraphs (tho a couple are pretty short) and seems far too long to me -- too detailed, and just as disjoint as the body. I think fixing this would resolve the issue of referencing being missing from the lede. If the lede didn't have so many details, it wouldn't beg for references.
    By the way, I originally came here to fix the hard referencing errors, and because I was concerned about the referenced material that was deleted from the article (and has yet to be replaced). I've spent a bit more time with the article, and it's in pretty bad shape. The sections aren't cohesive or accretive and read more like a disjoint collection than an informative essay presented with a solid framework. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's in pretty bad shape - oh we all know. I might have to read up on the scandal and just take an angle-grinder to the article myself to make it at least readable. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was one typo in the intro, which I have corrected - the convictions started to be quashed in 2020 not 2010 of course. Otherwise the dates are all correct and clear. People were convicted between 1999 and 2015 and then the convictions started to be quashed in 2020. "Courts began to quash convictions from 2020" does not imply they have all been quashed, and the very next sentence says "some victims are still fighting to have their convictions overturned". The JFSA included many campaigners. Apart from that one typo the facts and figures are all okay - the £20K was a simple bit of maths (which were are allowed to do) but can easily come out - 736 has become over 700 which I cannot see any objection to.
    As for length, I have been looking at the featured article for 1 January 2024 Koala. The intro has no references and is about the same length as the one in this article, even though the article itself is considerably shorter - about two-thirds the length. Southdevonian (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking of reading up on the scandal - has anyone here read the book by Nick Wallis? That might help. Southdevonian (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes do! Read and read. It is very evident that those attempting to get this page in order need to do quite a lot of reeding. This scandal has a great more to it now and yet to come. The Wyn inquiry has just restarted. Try Professor Moohouse. https://richardmoorhead.substack.com/p/how-soon-is-now-a-quick-post-on-whats?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-res tack-comment&r=1qy3u5 To get a flavour. Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Roll Fujitsu whistleblower

I am amazed to see no reference to the whistleblower. Others will be better placed than me to know where to add him; there are plenty of good refs e.g. "Who was Post Office whistleblower Richard Roll? Brave IT engineer who exposed awful truth", "Richard Roll's life and how Post Office scandal whistleblower became a hero" , https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/03/horizon-trial-day-4-day-of-two-halves.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sccwxcaYYo Amble123 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History and article size

By about 2022 the article the article was trying to cover events that had started about 20 years previously; but a scandal that then obviously still had a long way to run. The article was way over size. Many editors trimmed it and many tried to deal with the so-called ″aftermath″ which was in reality an ongoing scandal. We are at that stage again now, both in terms of the size (9779 words), and the fact that the scandal is clearly far from ending.

The analysis of causes of one of the significant heroes of this saga, Paul Marshal was:

  1. Legal – legislative failure.
  2. Legal – court/judicial failure.
  3. Post Office mendacity/opportunism.
  4. Failure in Post Office corporate governance.

Of the first some of this has, I think, been addressed but is not described in the article. For example, relatively recent statute required courts to take evidence from computers as unarguable. Has that been repealed? Of the second, see the work of Bristol University and others questioning the ethical and legal behaviour of all levels within the legal profession. The third and fourth are getting media attention and will increase. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it all started in 1999 with deployment of an inadequately tested system. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in the mid 1990s with the commissioning of a scheme under PFI designed as a plan that got significantly changed when the DWP/BA walked away in the late 1990s. MapReader (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "swipe card" idea to get your benefits was eventually canned. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of Horizon

Hansard here (Kevan Jones) says "It cost over £1 billion to install..." So how much is that? "£1 billion and 23p", "£1.9 billion", or how much? Is this the best estimate we are going to get? And will this be clarified by the enquiry? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Computer Weekly articles

This article uses several references to Computer Weekly articles. Most of them cannot be read without a 'corporate email address'. Does anyone know how to get access to read these please? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto, they're all available via the Internet Archive, e.g. [6]. If you can't find certain ones then maybe REX can help. – Isochrone (T) 08:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Isochrone for the tips. I did try the Internet Archive, but it seems very hit-and-miss, many are archived there with the requiring a 'corporate email address' message too, so cannot be read. Trying a different date/time usually works though. I was wondering if there was a more convenient way to access them available somewhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many post offices?

Is there a reliable source on roll-out and number of post offices? At the moment they appear contradictory - 13,000 by 2001, then back to "at least" 11,500 (quote from Vennells) in 2013 and then eventually 18,000? In February 2001, the minister for competitiveness told Parliament that 17,650 post offices were connected and 18,500 would be by the end of March [7]. Southdevonian (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post office closures in the interim? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are right, according to the graph on page 8 of this report [8]. Southdevonian (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead should use description closer to common reporting

I think these words should be used in the lead: commonly described as "one of the UK’s worst miscarriages of justice". There seems to be a fair consensus in British reporting using these words and very similar to summarise it. Citations with very similar wording should be easy to compile. eg: [9][10][11]

Instead, the current lead uses this phrase: "an extensive series of individual miscarriages of justice". I don't think this page should be inventing it's own way to describe the scandal as a whole if differs in meaning from common reporting, and at least should have a citation for that wording. The current lead differs in meaning in a two respects:

1) It seeks to distance and disconnect each case from each other. The word "individual" might be interpreted as "isolated" despite the evidence being that they were precipitated by a common set of bugs in the same software and pressed unfairly by a single organisation with singular intent.

2) Unlike the common reporting, it doesn't provide the contextual severity and cultural segnificance. The common reporting uses a description positions the severity in respect to other miscarriages of justice in the UK (close to the top).

I'm not aware of any contention over the commonly reported description, so I think it would be fair for this page to use the same 2A00:23C6:B30F:AC01:F836:AC1E:E658:FD4C (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I have used the term used by the CCRC and already referenced to the BBC in the article - widespread. Southdevonian (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding recent edits - I would prefer it without quotes as it is not original. I put "it has been described...." because the CCRC for example as well as the BBC (and probably other people) said it before Sunak, altho I suppose something assumes more importance if the PM says it. How about "It was described by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in the nation's history."? Or "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak acknowledged it as one of the greatest....."? With the quote later in the article. Southdevonian (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Could someone knock up a timeline showing who was in charge and who was responsible government minister from 1999 to present day? 81.110.169.44 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add one yourself if you think it would improve the article. Southdevonian (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think that both Peter Mandelson's and Tony Blair's involvement in the early years has been neglected!
I'm not confident in editing an article of such importance, but I am sure both of them played a very important role in the development and early roll-out. Keith T. 09:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit344 (talk • contribs)

Introduction very weaselly

"The Post Office insisted" etc. – An office cannot insist, there are people that could and should be named that made those decisions. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations have a voice when they make statements, etc. The intro is a summary of the article and not the place to get into apportioning blame amongst individuals. Southdevonian (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bates

Note that Alan Bates (subpostmaster) has been created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Shame about the hyphen though. Seriously, I just wondered if he is a sub-postmaster or a justice campaigner? Southdevonian (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost as famous as this guy? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
I corrected the hyphenation but was reverted. plus ça change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess someone ought to check through the millions of KBs on hyphen usage at WP:MoS? What do mere dictionaries know. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-postmaster or sub postmaster but definately not subpostmaster~~~
Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That second one would be underwater? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion about the spelling at Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters above.
Courtesy pinging all contributors: @Pigsonthewing, Southdevonian, Martinevans123, and Jacksoncowes:. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DeFacto. [12] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Post_Office_scandal&oldid=1195752708"