Talk:Tom Waterhouse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Protection level

This has just hit the press today - with semi-protection, folks can discuss changes before the page is changed, or named accounts can be responsible for edits.....or do we really want to leave this as PC? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Current semi-protection is appropriate, doesn't take much to become autoconfirmed. FlatOut 02:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bias

This article reads like an advert for Mr. Waterhouse. Especially section 4 Branding, which reads :

"In an effort to differentiate the Tom Waterhouse brand from the typical style favoured by competitors in the market, Waterhouse invested considerably in marketing and advertising, adopting a distinct style guide using black and white imagery with splashes of aquamarine, and a logo depicting Waterhouse’s silhouette carrying his iconic bookmaker bag."

Sounds like it was taken straight from an advertising brochure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerCollins (talk • contribs) 04:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree this looks like it has been taken straight out of a tom waterhouse advert. Tom's father and Grandfather were both banned from every racetrack in Australia at one point in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.134.34 (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I was about to note on the talkpage how this reads as if it were written by a publicist, when I saw the one and only heading on this page is just that. - 124.191.144.209 (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Material that does not meet WP:NPOV has been removed. FlatOut 06:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Further on WP:NPOV material.

"For four years Waterhouse lived in Melbourne’s Crown Casino for most of the week due to the protectionist betting laws in NSW"

'Protectionist' is a POV description. The description has in fact been through court proceedings and found to be inaccurate (see [1]). Protectionist isn't used in a direct quote from Waterhouse in the reference article, at best it appears to be an inference that it is his opinion. Given that, there doesn't seem to be any value in even referring to it in the article. 203.45.169.221 (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage of biased editing by Waterhouse staff

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/missing-details-the-sanitisation-of-tom-waterhouses-wikipedia-page-20130514-2jjfh.html LibStar (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Too bad the paper is not clued in about the Wikipedia policies regarding WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Collect: It's more than fair of the SMH to ask why significant events in Mr Waterhouse's life are not listed on this page. Especially since the SMH works under the very same defamation laws as Wikipedia, thus has internal policies equivalent to WP:BLP, and yet has still reported extensively on those events. Gdt (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I still believe the More Joyous edits were notable, and not a breach of WP:BLP but consensus is required either way. FlatOut 02:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

it is a fact that he was called to a stewards official inquiry and that his relationship with his mother Gai Waterhouse was discussed. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking at the edit history of the page and I have noticed a few IP addresses and users have been removing points that paint Tom in a less then favorable light. It maybe worth going back through the edit history and restoring some of the edits. Thoughts? Otchiman (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well they should be reviewed at least and restored only if the removal was not in line with Wikipedia standards.--Merbabu (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not overly familiar with Wikipedia policy's but would it be possible to ban the Tom Waterhouse staff that are making these edits from editing on this article? I am not sure I am allowed to name the editors I suspect but they are very obvious in the edit history as this is the only article they have ever edited on and all they are doing is removing negative press about Tom. Otchiman (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For information only, I opened a discussion WP:SOCKPUPPET relating to some of the users that seemed connected to Waterhouse, Sock-puppetry was not upheld. FlatOut 05:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Father Robbie

why is this statement in bold here? should it not be in his father's article? LibStar (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Waterhouse's father, Robbie Waterhouse and grandfather William "Bill" Waterhouse are also bookmakers. They have attracted controversy in the past including the loss of their bookmaker's licences for eighteen years (originally life bans) due to their involvement in the Fine Cotton substitution scandal in 1984.[9]

At the time this was written ( it emerged from an entry made around May 10), there was no page for Robbie Waterhouse, which I created on 12 May. Arguable it is not necessary here. FlatOut 05:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

More Joyous

Does anyone feel like having a crack at a summary of the More Joyous allegations? FlatOut 03:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No. At this point it is rumour and allegation about Mr. Waterhouse, and thus requires stronger sourcing before we add it to this BLP. Collect (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

An allegation was made, he gave evidence to steward's hearing and was cleared. The matter received significant coverage and Waterhouses' reputation was on the line, being cleared is worth including.

And so we can omit it per WP:BLP - if there was no substance to the rumours and allegations, it is wrong for us to perpetuate the rumours and allegations. Not even a "two days wonder." Collect (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many BLP articles that have entries about allegations that have been not proven, or have been disproved. I don't see anything in WP:BLP that precludes a significant event from being included. Providing reliable sources that reports the allegation, the process for resolving the allegations, and the outcome of that process is not rumour. Please indicate the part of WP:BLP that supports your position. Thanks. FlatOut 08:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Waterhouse is not "known as a criminal." Practice at BLP/N is that unless the crime has a substantial connection to the notability of the person, that it does not get used (all subjects are "known" in the sense of meeting WP notability guidelines). Collect (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou much appreciated. The allegations are not allegations that a crime has occurred, they are allegations that Tom Waterhouse passed on information that his mother Gai Waterhouse had given him regarding the fitness of a racehorse, to others who passed that information onto the horses owner who sacked Gai Waterhouse for not telling him the horse was unfit. It is an issue of the overlap between TomWaterhouse.com of which is part owner, and his mother's training business which has been confirmed by stewards. FlatOut 13:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

IOW, even less important - which makes it even less likely to warrant inclusion. BTW, use of "inside information" in that manner is a criminal offense. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain that passing on information of this matter is illegal in this country, though it may be an issue re: bookmaking licensing. Withholding information from stewards is an issue but applies to Gai Waterhouse not Tom Waterhouse. The story has been a lead news item since April 27, however I will leave it for others who may have a view. FlatOut 13:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that it up to the person adding the contentious claim to get a consensus to add it - so you might wish to enquire at BLP/N or start an RfC. Simpling adding it without a consensus violates policy as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It’s been on the front pages of decent newspapers for the last two weeks. Yet, the proposed addition is neither notable nor reliable? Huh?

It also points out clearly that he has been cleared of wrong doing by the enquiry – a point that can be missed in all the hyped up media reporting. So if anything, from a BLP perspective wikipedia would be doing the subject a favour.

Isn’t it Wikipedia’s job to cut through the crap and just report on the facts with reliable sources? IN what way is the proposal not doing that? --Merbabu (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So i see this now. It's a good start, but the context of the last two weeks is not provided. It is incomplete without it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it needed more work re: context but was reverted in good faith before I could expand FlatOut 03:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely the More Joyous content will be more settled. Unlikely anyone close to Waterhouse is going to change the subject matter unless it is wrong, defamatory etc. Good to see some of the other sections getting attention.Reflexio (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Quoting - really?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I really don't understand why there are quotations like ' "help out on the bag" at Rosehill' and ' "Within about 20 minutes I was hooked," ', let alone why there aren't any references to these.
A quotation like 'helping out on the bag' is really unnecessary, and is probably too informal. With 'Within about 20 minutes I was hooked' if it is necessary, then it could probably just use 'and within about 20 minutes, he was hooked'. Quoting is probably not necessary.
Anon2468 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but remember we are writing an advertisement for the subject. </sarcasm> --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot. Anon2468 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

whoever added is quoting the reference, agree should be reworded. FlatOut 03:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TomWaterhouse.com

In May 2013, Waterhouse was warned by stewards to keep his bookmaking business clearly separate from the training business of his mother Gai Waterhouse, to avoid public perceptions of a conflict of interest. Racing NSW will consider what formal processes must be put in place to avoid a re-run of the More Joyous fiasco. FlatOut 01:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fiasco" is not a neutral term ... what you could try is:

Stewards have told Waterhouse ro keep Tomwaterhouse.com separate from his wife's training business.

Collect (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, revised the reason for the warning out, this might come later when Racing NSW make a further decision. Warned is more accurate than told as it is not a "must" as yet.

Waterhouse has actually been directed by the stewards, not just warned, and failure to comply could invoke the powers of stewards - quite considerable under the various Racing acts around the country. AndreMarti68 (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. So "told" or "directed" would be appropriate. FlatOut

"Directed" would be more accurate, but I am new and don't have edit rights to the semi-protected page to change the article AndreMarti68 (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC).

In May 2013, Waterhouse was warned by stewards to keep his bookmaking business clearly separate from the training business of his mother Gai Waterhouse, to avoid public perceptions of a conflict of interest. FlatOut 02:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with this? --Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Merbabu that edit is now live, its the section in More Joyous that Collect reverted. See discussion above. FlatOut 03:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 17 May 2013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Waterhouse's father, Robbie, was previously banned from Australian racetracks for 14 years following the Fine Cotton scandal. 24.227.210.218 (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: There is an existing reference to this in the article.

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robbie Waterhouse Convictions

Robbie Waterhouse has been convicted of perjury and race fixing. It is not defamatory to note these convictions, and give the profile of the subject it is relevant. User:Suzanne888 and others previously have repeatedly removed this information. To avoid edit warring, please comment here before making significant changes to the article. See WP:NPOV and WP:EDITWAR. FlatOut 05:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not correct and is defamatory. Robert Waterhouse pleaded guilty to a charge of false swearing before a tribunal (in 1984) however that is now a Spent Conviction (and has been for over 10 years) and so it is unlawful to disclose. Further he is not a race fixer - this is defamatory. He has always denied any involvement in Fine Cotton, apart from betting. Cheers Suzanne888 Suzanne888 (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone would think that Suzanne888 is related to Waterhouse, with the nonsense she goes on about. In what jurisdiction is "false swearing before a Tribunal" NOT perjury? And it is not "illegal" to disclose a spent conviction. The spent conviction legislation simply affords a right to a previously convicted person NOT to disclose a previous conviction beyond a certain prescribed period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.39.242 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

His conviction for perjury is a matter of public record and as such meets Wikipedia:Verifiability and can be included. Regarding race fixing, it is probably more accurate to say he was warned off rather than convicted.. If you have a close connection to the subject then you need to consider Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You also should stop removing the information until consensus is reached. FlatOut 06:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased to replace "race fixer" with having been warned-off. FlatOut 06:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

::::: YesWP:SOCKPUPPET applies.

The main problem is that the convictions are relevant to the father's article, but not to the son's. WP:BLP is fairly clear on this sort of stuff. Collect (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point and thankyou, his parentage has been removed when cleaning up the WP:BLP issues. FlatOut 00:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

For an understanding of what the term 'defamation' actually means in the legal sense I would have a look at this reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherford (talk • contribs) 10:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 29 June 2013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Waterhouse's father, Robbie Waterhouse and grandfather William "Bill" Waterhouse are also bookmakers. They have attracted controversy in the past including the loss of their bookmaker's licences for eighteen years (originally life bans) due to their involvement in the Fine Cotton substitution scandal in 1984.[10]"

The expression "attracted controversy" usually suggests an element of doubt. However, these people were initially banned for life, and it is extremely dubious to see someone try to downplay their criminality by saying "they attracted contraversy". This page is apparently subject to extreme scrutiny by the owner and his staff, and there is a high degree of risk relating to the content. Philip Czaplowski (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Attracted controversy is appropriate. Although some allegations were proven, others were not but remain controversial. Also that type of content belongs at the articles of Robbie and William Waterhouse not here. The page is closely watched and edits made by those with a vested interest have been deleted. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Singleton

An editor has twice to add this paragraph: [2]

Which has been reverted as it does not meet WP:BLP and belongs at Singleton's article. The steward finding relating to Tom Waterhouse is already in the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs explaining

"For four years Waterhouse lived in Melbourne’s Crown Casino for most of the week due to the protectionist betting laws in NSW."

The reference supports the statement ok, but doesn't explain what the the "protectionist betting laws" are/were. Can an Aussie elucidate. Moriori (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Intro

Tom Waterhouse is no longer a bookie or CEO of William Hill. He has sold his business and now runs a horse racing tipping company under his own name and website again: https://calvinayre.com/2018/05/09/business/tom-waterhouse-betting-tip-site/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenbaas (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)