Talk:Paula Vennells/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removal of CBE: definitive reference

The King removed Vennells' CBE on 23 Feb 2024 as per this official notice [1]. I appreciate that this may already be mentioned above, but there is so much discussion of it that I cannot read it all to check.

If that is not evidence of "disgrace", tell me what is. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not go the whole hog? "Prince Andrew, Duke of York is a disgraced member of the British royal family", "Lucy Letby is a disgraced British former neonatal nurse", "Michelle Georgina Mone, Baroness Mone is a disgraced Scottish businesswoman", "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a disgraced British politician and writer", etc. We could point to evidence for all of these (Prince Andrew stripped of his military titles and patronages, Letby being convicted, Mone having her assets frozen, Johnson becoming the first sitting PM to be punished for breaking the law/Committee of Privileges report) but we won't, because it's not for us to say. You'd have to stretch yourself to call me a fan of Vennells, but we cannot call her "disgraced", just as we can't call paedophiles, murderers, fraudsters, profiteers, liars and our other national villains "disgraced". We aren't a certain other PM. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There is an article, List of revocations of appointments to orders and awarded decorations and medals of the United Kingdom, that you can check for all the other biographies of people stripped of honours, and not one of the begins with "is a disgraced [career]". It is noted in the introduction of this article that her CBE was taken from her; I added it myself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You forgot "Liz Truss is a disgraced former lettuce." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Former? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The removal / relinquishing of the honour is not, in itself, sufficient to describe her as disgraced. Obviously her role in the Horizon scandal is strongly suggestive of disgrace and there would not be many people (readers) who would object to seeing her described as a disgraced former business woman. However, the obstacle we have is the adjective itself. It is strongly suggestive of PoV, is therefore controversial and appears little used on WP. If articles can be identified that use disgraced in the way it might be used here, we would be in a more comfortable position to resist challenge. Maybe in 2 years time when Sir Wyn produces his report into the Horizon scandal there may be more weight? There is no rush. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not as if any criminal charges have yet been brought, against anyone. During the next two years, if she ends up in Holloway, people may feel different. Although we'll probably have to wait for publication of the report before any charges are even considered? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Using the List of revocations of appointments to orders and awarded decorations and medals of the United Kingdom given above, it seems that biographies often do mention the failings of subjects of articles at an early stage.
Rolf Harris: conviction of sexual assault of underage girls in first para/third sentence;
Jim Speechley: stripped of CBE for misconduct in a public office in first para/second sentence;
Freddie Emery-Wallis: over half this stub article is about his "spectacular fall from grace";
Vidkun Quisling: "Nazi collaborator" in first sentence (which is arguably worse than "disgraced");
etc., etc.
All we are really lacking is a good RS for "disgraced" – which will surely come in time – and then the word should appear early in the lead, since it will be the defining characteristic that makes this article subject notable. To be clear, the reason for choosing the word "disgraced" is that we need something that encapsulates a quite complex set of failings in summary form. Those failings are currently being revealed. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the word "disgraced" would first need to appear, probably with attribution, in the main body. If you are seeking good RS, there are four listed by Southdevonian at the start of the thread named "Is Vennells disgraced?" above. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. seems word gets about.

I don't think we should be trying to judge her ourselves, or parroting how specific sources choose to judge her, I think we should be providing just the best NPOV version of the pertinent facts of the topic that we can source and leave our readers to draw their own conclusions based on those. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the view in the linked edit to Robert Durst that the word "disgraced" is necessarily unsuitable for use in a Wikipedia article. Taking the Collins dictionary definition "You use disgraced to describe someone whose bad behaviour has caused them to lose the approval and respect of the public or of people in authority." I think we can reasonably conclude that this is a factual description of what has happened to Vennells. Is anyone putting forward the idea that she has not lost "the approval and respect of the public or of people in authority"? (Petition to revoke CBE plus the act of doing so.) The evidence that this is due to "bad behaviour" is from the comments of made about the Post Office in court.
In short, in this case, "disgraced" is a factual description, not a subjective opinion. That might not apply about the usage elsewhere in Wikipedia, but it seems a pretty clear-cut case here. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"Disgraced" is subjective, not factual, if its definition relies on the application of the subjective word "bad". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

During the case, the Post Office's conduct under Vennells's leadership was described as an instance of "appalling and shameful behaviour" – the evidence is in the article, from a judge (someone who makes a living out of judging people?). How bad does someone have to be to meet your criteria? In simple descriptive English, "disgraced" is surely the best word to use.
Without the Post Office scandal, I do not see that Vennells' article would easily meet notability standards – I suppose the CBE would have made it squeak through. But the article's edit history makes clear that the Post Office scandal easily makes her notable. In that context, it seems that Wikipedia wants to bowdlerise the story. I appreciate that care needs to be taken with biographies of living persons, but with plenty of MSM sources using "disgraced" I do not think that Wikipedia is going to get sued (the driving force behind BLP). I just see this as an attempt to destroy normal English usage for no good purpose. We are trying to make a better encyclopaedia here, but pussy-footing around a word that has a clear dictionary definition to support it does not seem to achieve that job. I am sorry to be expressing this so strongly, but that is how I feel. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

So "the Post Office's conduct" then, and not necessarily that of Vennells herself? Give the bare and supportable facts of the topic and let the readers draw their own conclusions. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

...under Vennells's leadership.... This fits perfectly with the idea that the lead summarises the article, with "disgraced" covering (per the dictionary definition) the sum of various parts of the article. I suspect (though obviously do not know) that resistance to the word "disgraced" is due to some editors having a different understanding of the word. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That is not only asserting a subjective opinion as fact, but is also relying on the unsupported assertion of complicity. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

"Complicity"? i.e. that the company and it's CEO knew what each other were doing? That does actually happen in some companies, you know? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we have sources that support it happening here though? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the CBE was formally revoked just because of her incompetence, what do you think? Either way the revocation meant she was disgraced. That's just a prime example of being disgraced. Her disgrace was not in any way ameliorated during her three days of giving evidence to the inquiry. If anything, it deepened. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we know why it was revoked? If it was because of an ill-founded outcry, perhaps based on fake news on social media, for example, then no, it wouldn't mean she was disgraced, quite the contrary in fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You are actually suggesting that the Post Office Horizon Scandal, and Vennell's part in it, has involved "fake news on social media" and that this was why it may have been revoked? Wow. And I had thought you were scrapping the bottom of the argument barrel here some weeks ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I gave that as a hypothetical example of a reason that would not imply disgrace.

Now one for you... Are you suggesting that everyone who signed the petition was fully aware that the TV drama was not a validated and fully fact-checked account of everything relevant to the scandal, and of all the historical facts surrounding the scandal and of all the good works that Vennells had done, and that they genuinely believed beyond all reasonable doubt that, on balance, she didn't deserve the gong? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Could we focus on real examples, not hypothetical one? Vennells could have been found to have been suffering from a severe mental illness, the nature of which could not be made public because of patient confidentiality. But that's entirely hypothetical. So it's a waste of timing inventing it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, all the overlooked "good works" might have exonerated her, mightn't they. Another hypothetical. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

DeFacto, those four sources look pretty strong to me. How many more would you want? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If those four aren't enough, there's also Oxford Mail, Evening Standard, STV News, Yahoo News, Daily Express, Irish News, Worcester News, etc. etc.. That last one is quite interesting, as it quotes the Bishop of Worcester, John Inge: "The Bishop of Worcester has said it "sticks in the gullet" that he was criticised by disgraced former Post Office boss Paula Vennells." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

A bunch of cherry-picked unreliable headlines from a mixture of tabloids and deprecated generally unreliable sources does not help us support the assertion in Wiki's voice, as if a fact, of a subjective opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Which of those sources are deprecated? Southdevonian (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I was thinking of the Daily Express, but checking I see Daily Express is labelled as "generally unreliable", but not as "deprecated". I've corrected my comment above. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're claiming all those sources are either "tabloids" or "generally unreliable"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that sources that are deemed unreliable, generally unreliable, or that use tabloid journalism cannot help us here. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I'll say I don't intend to use the Daily Mail, although they don't use the d-word. they just call her "the shamed 65-year-old" Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are any of those "unreliable"? And when did I ever suggest adding this word "in Wiki's voice"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES says: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source, and the word "disgraced" only appears in the headlines (and not the article body) of most of those sources.

This section is about whether we can say she was "disgraced", and that implies saying it in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The Times seems quite relaxed about using the "disgraced" label for Vennells. See [2][3][4], etc. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

..."disgraced"... implies saying it in Wiki's voice. I find this argument strange. The word "disgraced" is a fair summary of what the article says. There are plenty of RSs that also use the word. It is not like we are introducing a new concept or fact – it's just a word that sums up the situation described in the article particularly well. Whatever happened to summary style and paraphrasing? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a subjective opinion and not an incontrovertible fact, and WP:VOICE says:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts
• Prefer nonjudgmental language

So we cannot say that she is disgraced. We might be able to say that journalist A and journalist B concluded from [whatever they are discussing in their articles] that she has been disgraced. But we need to ensure WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV compliance in terms of attribution, accuracy, tone, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Quite amusing this: we have DeFacto's subjective opinion that "disgraced" is a subjective opinion and not an incontrovertible fact. The dictionary definition provides what is needed for this label and the facts reported in the article meet the requirements of that definition. Quite simply Vennells once had a respected status with important jobs (cabinet office, etc.) and now she does not because of the outcry at her role in the scandal (e.g. vote to have CBE removed and the fact that it was.) Do you dispute these facts? Do you think they do not meet the dictionary definition of "disgraced"? What has happened to: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice (from WP:VOICE)? Who is contesting the view that Vennells is disgraced? (I have checked the Church Times on this, as a likely supporter of her, and whilst they do not use the term "disgraced" themselves, they are quite happy to publish a letter that applies that label to Vennells[5]. From this I think we can conclude that nobody is avoiding the term.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Was that the "outcry at her role" or was it really the "outcry based on the social media and news media portrayal of her role"?

I don't think we yet truly know what her role in the scandal was, or how culpable, or not, she actually was. And as we don't have any relevant uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources that would support using "disgraced" in Wiki's voice, we have nothing that should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Or can you point out what in the article qualifies as such? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Her CBE was formally revoked. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not necessarily her disgrace though, that surely depends on why it was revoked. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think not. I'd argue that revocation is disgrace enough. But there are other aspects that are detailed elsewhere on this page as well. If you've missed all the news over the past few years, however, the Oxford Mail provides a handy explanation here under: "Paula Vennells - from Oxford to disgraced Post Office chief". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So, DeFacto, your opinion is that "cancelled, annulled and her name erased from the register." (London Gazette) does not equate to 'disgraced'? It's the tired old WP argument "if a synonym is used, that's not a source" again? She was once honoured. If that honour is removed, that is dishonourable. I would be happy to use "dishonoured" here rather than "disgraced", although it seems a clumsier choice of phrasing. She was given an honour nominally by the grace of the sovereign. If that honour is removed, that is now a literal disgracing. We can absolutely source this (quote above, and the London Gazette is the canon source for such things) and the only wiggle room is that the LG wording does not equate to "disgrace". Which is a very sophist claim to try and make. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I would back this argument. It is coherent and defensible. We have to get the issue over the line and while there is no rush and the inquiry outcome could product further support for it, the case is fairly compelling as of now. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with synonyms, it's to do with with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.

It is because I don't think we have appropriate uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources to support it being summarised or paraphrased as the subjective adjective "disgraced".

Do we reliably know the precise reason why the honour was revoked, for example? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to know. That's their concern. We don't need to analyse RS sources, we just have to report them. You're just inventing new policy here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So if we don't know, we cannot assume the reason. If the reason isn't given we do not know it. The best we can say in that case is that it was revoked., but not try and second-guess the reasons. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there was a petition (you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-paula-vennells-of-her-cbe) resulting in her relinquishing the honour. The London Gazette simply reports that "THE KING has directed that the appointment of Paula Anne VENNELLS to be a Commander of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, dated 29 December 2018, shall be cancelled and annulled and that her name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order". Leaky caldron (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So, just to be clear. The honours committee gave no clear reason exactly why the CBE was annulled. But before we can simply say in this article that Vennells has been disgraced, because of this annulment, as reported in many RS sources, we have to work out for ourselves, what the exact reason was? Wow. What was that Edward Henry KC said last week? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The facts would bear that interpretation I suppose. Looking at other reported defenestrations, they all involve malfeasance in business / office but specific reasons are not given. The petitioner's provides greater detail of course but would not be a RS, I suspect. Leaky caldron (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If we don't know why it was annulled how can we draw that conclusion in Wiki's voice?

Sure, if we have a secondary source reporting on how the news media are reporting it that way, then we could use that to support something on it in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have never suggested adding something in Wiki's voice. I've said this several times now. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately the topic subject and related source material has become spread across several sections, not helped by the unnecessary and disruptive full protection over 2 days. It becomes difficult for all interested editors to stay across discussions which are fragmented in this way. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't see any easy way round that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The only thing unnecessary and disruptive is how you challenged that. And continue to, endlessly. Maybe stop? El_C 01:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Would this angle have any traction? - She wasn't disgraced as a person but as a CEO. Therefore, it was the Post Office that did all this malpractice and was disgraced (and was punished for it). As a CEO she benefits from no personal liability, which includes being labelled disgraceful. If anyone can call her disgraced it is the Post Office, which won't happen. I am sure if the Post Office had consistently lost millions of shareholders' money under her tenure before sacking her, it would be the Post Office, or the board of directors, whom the media would call disgraceful, not the CEO. Did she do anything criminally wrong to make her personally liable (note - Trump)? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We might have to wait quite a while to get an answer to the criminality question. Although she was advised not to incriminate herself at the inquiry? CEO "benefits" don't look that attractive to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

(1) I think we need to be careful of the language here. Vennells is "disgraced", as is evidenced by her change in status (removal of CBE, obliged to resign various posts). I do not think we can describe her as "disgraceful" as that is something different and is actually derogatory. You may be disgraced by showing disgraceful conduct (whether momentary or continuous), but if you are described as "disgraceful" that suggests being continuously in that state, which does not necessarily apply to anyone who is fairly described as "disgraced".
(2) In considering whether Vennells was disgraced as a person, consider the question raised (and reported in a number of sources) as to whether or not she was a "fit and proper person" for her board position in the NHS.ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, my careless mistake - I meant disgraced, as in the media, not disgraceful. I'm not as au fait about the NHS, or the legal status of Post Office Ltd either, as I should be, but regarding a normal company subject to normal company law, she was an incompetent CEO, not a criminal with personal liability so IMO the buck stops with the directors for not dealing with her earlier. That makes her different from people like Savile. It looks as though her standing down from other positions is simply because her positions there are untenable, due to the public witch-hunt fuelled by the media. Those other bodies in which she held positions of authority, eg the Church of England, could not afford to keep her to avoid similar bad publicity. I note they advised her to stand down, not sack her, presumably because she'd down nothing wrong except being an incompetent CEO. But, as I said, I'm not fully aware of all the details so I might be missing something obvious. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted. The complexities of this case go far beyond the duties of the CEO of an ordinary company, because the Post Office acted as prosecutor (i.e. what the Crown Prosecution Service usually does). It is probably wrong to go into more detail on that here, as a lot of that is what might happen, but we do know that that a significant number of persons convicted as a result of Post Office prosecutions have now been exonerated. So it is already outside the boundaries of what could happen in a normal company and may well get a lot worse. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

To add to that, if her position in other posts becomes untenable, then that is the process of becoming disgraced. The dictionary definition does not say that the process has to be fair and correct – it is just the process of ceasing to have good standing. Being unacceptable to continue in a senior management position is part of that process. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Birthplace

The Manchester Evening News here and the Evening Standard here both say she was born in Denton. So I think this should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Also Yahoo News here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could object, as it already says she grew up in Denton, so not a big change. Southdevonian (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, FreeBMD just shows that her birth was registered in "Manchester" district. But that source is not considered RS anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Verifiabilty

Specifically in the second sentence in the first paragraph in the Paula Vennells#Post Office scandal section, which says: In addition, over 2,000 subpostmasters were forced to pay the Post Office for Horizon errors or had their contracts terminated.

I assume that after numerous edits and rearrangements of content, some of the sources have been lost or moved within the text, so rather than me re-tagging stuff which is likely already covered in a source somewhere, can we please identify from which source, and with the applicable quote, the support for each of the following:

• "over 2,000 subpostmasters" (in the context of being forced to pay or having their contracts terminated)
• "forced to pay"

And, to add context, it would be useful to know:

• How many of the 2000 were "forced to pay"
• How many had their contracts terminated
• How it was decided which of those two options was applied
• For those who were forced to pay, what method was used (e.g. court confiscation orders). In my mind's eye I'm imagining them being frog-marched to a local ATM or having a family member or pet held hostage.

I think, especially as this is a BLP, that verification should be made easy. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't your mind's eye also include the application of thumbscrews and electrodes? No waterboarding? I'm surprised. You'll probably be wanting sources to support those. Or perhaps just the serial numbers of the court orders? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article says: "In total, about 3,500 branch owner-operators were wrongly accused of taking money from their businesses, with more than 900 prosecuted by the Post Office despite protesting their innocence and raising issues with the software in their defence...Even those who did not go to court had to drum up money to cover nonexistent shortfalls." We are allowed to do simple arithmetic without straying into original research territory. It is not necessary in this article to go into more detail about methods of enforcement, but I think they included threat of prosecution, threat of contract termination, deduction from wages, etc, and yes - court confiscation orders. These facts and figures are not controversial or contested. Southdevonian (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, I guess 3,500 is more than 2,000. British Post Office scandal says: "By 15 January 2024 the scheme had received 2,753 eligible claims and paid out £93 million to over 2,172 claimants." Maybe that gives a better idea of the scale of the scandal. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The 3,500 in The Guardian is total number. You have to subtract the 900 prosecutions to get the over 2000 "in addition" people in the article. That is, in addition to those who were prosecuted. The schemes are complicated and probably better not to get into them in this article. The figure you quote is for the Horizon shortfall scheme, that is people who were not convicted and did not take part in the group action. Convicted and group action people have their own schemes. The figures are inevitably approximate as more people are coming forward and also mainstream media don't always distinguish between prosecutions and convictions, or between PO prosecutions and other prosecutions. Southdevonian (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems perfectly fair to me. Would "obliged to pay" be better than "forced to pay"? It seems some editor(s) might think the word "forced" will seen as having connotations of forced labour or something. I guess subpostmasters felt they "had to" dip into to their own pockets to avoid being investigated and taken to court by their employer? But those decisions were all subjective choices, which can never leave a trail of objective factual evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, some chose to pay to avoid investigation, suspension and prosecution (not much of a free choice) but others had the money deducted from their wages when they had a discrepancy. BBC, Guardian and others use "forced" [6] [7] [8]. Southdevonian (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that looks perfectly fair to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Southdevonian, thanks for the number clarification. I agree that arithmetic is allowed, so long as it is fairly obvious what to add and what to subtract. I can't see "forced" supported though. It seems like a clearer, more impartial, more measured, and better supported wording of that sentence would be something like:

2,000 other subpostmasters who were alleged to have a shortfall were given the option of paying off the shortfall or facing prosecution and/or contract termination.

Does that sound reasonable? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure some of them just paid it to stop being given any choice, i.e. to stop it even coming to light. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been bold and tweaked the article to avoid the misleading "forced to" and "had to". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It now says "Over 2,000 other subpostmasters had the option of paying off their alleged shortfalls to avoid prosecution, contract termination, or any other sanctions." How is that supported by the sources? Feel free to provide direct quotes. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said "chose the option", which I correctly put in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

How about answering the question? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. or don't bother, as it's already now been corrected.

I thought I had answered the question, or don't you think these took up that option? They had the choice: pay up or risk sanctions. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't convinced that your version was adequately supported by those two sources. But we have now moved on anyway. My main point was that it wasn't a simple dichotomy of choice - some subpostmasters balanced the books at the end of the day assuming they had made mistakes. The Post Office may have never been unaware of these people. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Still confused

Following Southdevonian's most recent edit, we now have Many more paid the Post Office for alleged shortfalls or had their contracts terminated in the lead and ... over 2,000 subpostmasters paid for shortfalls caused by Horizon and many had their contracts terminated in the body.

There are gaps in that though. What happened to those who did not pay? Did any of those who paid also lose their contract? Which of these statements are true?:

1. The 2,000 includes those who paid and those who did not
2. The 2,000 includes those who kept their contracts and those who lost them
3. Those who paid kept their contracts
4. Those who did not pay lost their contracts

We need to present a clear, unambiguous and coherent account, and I don't think that is currently the case. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone know? I propose removing this ambiguous content then. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

When you say "there are gaps", do you mean there are gaps in the material in the sources? I'm not sure it's our job to undertake WP:OR to fill any gaps. Editors are expected to just reflect what any WP:RS reports? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If what we write (and of course it needs to be fully supported by the sources) does not allow us to answer those questions I posed, then it is gobbledygook, and worthless to the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You're saying that, even if the content of the WP:RS sources is fairly reflected in the article, but your questions are not answered, then what was in the original sources is "gobbledygook, and worthless to the article." That's quite a radical claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that what we have, so far, is not good enough for readers to understand the situation as it leaves unanswered questions. So it needs improving. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference edit request on 26 May 2024

Request change to references. References 23 and 27 appear to be the same. Would it be possible to merge them? Localhistorian2024 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Refs checked today, one pair combined, presumably the same ones. Wire723 (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)