Talk:Neil Clark (writer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Correction

The correct title of the Ross McKibbin book referred to in the edit summary on the article history page is Classes and Cultures: England 1918-1951. Philip Cross (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal case

The administrators had a difficult time on this one last year, so let me repeat the outcome of Mr Clark's complaint and the source. The statement that Mr Clark's claim against me was struck out by the presiding judge at the Oxford County Court in May 2006 is both factual and sourced. The source is the List of Proceedings of the Court, under claim number 60X01433. The Court Order, dated 3 May 2006, states: "Upon consideration of the court file it is ordered that the claim is struck out."

The record of court proceedings is of course a primary source, but as I understand it, Wikipedia policy allows the use of primary sources subject to the following requirement: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

The statement that Mr Clark's claim was struck out by the presiding judge in May 2006 meets that requirement. Anyone reading the court records, the details of which I've stated, can verify that the Wikipedia passage about this that has been deleted agrees with the primary source. You don't need specialist knowledge. I must therefore ask that the deleted sentence be reinstated. I'm reluctant to do it myself, as I'm obviously an interested party, but I will if the article remains in this state for more than a few days. It should be obvious that Wikipedia cannot leave it as an open question whether I am guilty or innocent of a civil offence when the case against me was struck out by the court two years ago. And as Mr Clark was sent a copy of the Court Order that struck out his claim, he is in the happy position of being able to confirm the accuracy of my account. OliverKamm (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please cite a reliable independent source which describes why the claim was struck out. We do not dredge into court papers for content, we rely on secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)