Talk:R v Peacock

R v Peacock received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability of blog reference

A user is repeatedly adding a reference to their own blog and describing themselves as an "expert". I don't think it's notable so have been removing it. Somearemoreequal (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I hope this is the correct place to contribute. I am said user. And I was referring to my own work. I have a Phd in gender studies and have relevant experience and knowledge in the area that relates to the case. The blog - Graunwatch www.graunwatch.wordpress.com that my article is from, is 'notable' in that it is the only site that critiques the Guardian newspaper specifically. I critiqued the discourse around the trial as shown in the Guardian. My blogpost on it had the most lively discussion of all that I have seen, with 46 comments and counting. The digital age changes what 'notable' means. I think wikipedia is a bit behind the times. QRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NotoriousQRG (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)NotoriousQRG here I am fine with the edit I accept your points.[reply]

(edit conflict)I have reverted it again. I don't see any evidence that this wordpress blog is notable. Please take a look at WP:SELFCITING and WP:USERGENERATED, and consider seeking consensus here before adding your blog back to the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Wikipedia may be "behind the times" but we have policies that all editors are expected to follow. Wikipedia requires that an article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" (source at WP:DUE). So is the content you are adding published by a reliable source? Wikipedia defines what a "reliable source" is. You can read this policy here: WP:RS. In general blogs are not considered notable unless the blog itself has also been mentioned in the press. I personally don't think the blog you're using as a citation in this article is a reliable source. The second link, to the ezine of the Open Rights Group is a lot closer to a reliable source. But I think that the biggest problem here is that there is an apparent conflict of interest with you adding information on your own articles into a wikipedia article. Please read this: WP:COI.

I don't think that the content you are adding has received enough coverage outside your own writings to be considered for inclusion in this article. That's my opinion, anyway... I'm going to revert the article one more time, taking this information out. Quiet Riot Girl, please do not add it in, unless it you can show where your opinion has been reported on by a reliable, natural, outside source (not an article you have written). If you add it back in, you could get blocked! If you disagree, keep talking here! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, thought that the added comment was insufficiently notable and removed it, also worrying about the COI element almost-instinct 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to have commentary on the case, there's more than enough from notable/mainstream sources. How exactly has the "digital age" (which Wikipedia was born out of) changed the definition of "notable"? Uniqueness in one particular way doesn't imply notability. 46 comments is also not a measure of notability - I know people who get more on that on their Livejournal or Facebook when they post what they ate for breakfast.

There's countless individuals who have a say on this case, and have written something in a blog or wherever - should they all post their comments into the article too? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. You already have a blog to write your opinion on the case - use that, not this article. Mdwh (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all thanks for the information I accept your points. I had not encountered this 'revert' rule before and now I understand. Thanks NotoriousQRG

I am not going to edit it as I don't want to get into another fight but whoever edited the main body of the article most recently has not done a very good job. The sentences are far too long and it doesn't all make sense or even seem that relevant! NotoriousQRG —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Who has been exposed to this stuff against their will?

"Nigel Richardson later told the press that the jury had recognised that the pornography found in the DVDs would only be seen by "gay men specifically asking for this type of material" and not by the general public." This seems significant; the implication would be that only (some) members of the jury and legal professionals present have ever been exposed to this material against their wishes, inclinations etc. Is not the clear implication that the prosecution of such trials runs directly counter to the spirit of any obscenity legislation? I for one certainly do not have the stomach for this material and it appears that the only way I can ever be made to watch it is when the state calls me up for jury duty!137.205.101.77 (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]