Open main menu

Ted Heath's biographerEdit

I read in a newspaper article that MacShane is a biographer of Ted Heath. Why is that considering that MacShane is a Labourite and Heath was a Conservative Prime Minister. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they're both europhiles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.30.137 (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments about David Davis' resignation in 2008Edit

I removed the following on NPOV grounds:

...despite the fact that highly regarded independent commentators such as Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, cited Davis' "courage and conviction" when asked to comment on his resignation.

Clearly editorialising, whether or not one agrees with it. Philip Cross (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Michał KamińskiEdit

Should there be anything on this page about MacShane's allegations about Michał Kamiński? I think he alleged that Kamiński was an anti-semite and it turned out to be completely without merit.Tessaroithmost (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Saunders Asperger's diagnosis"Edit

There seem to be a couple of things wrong here, although they have little to do with McShane:

  • Saunders had, or seemed to have, Alzheimer's. I've never seen any mention of Asperger's, certainly not at Saunders's own article.
  • Even if Saunders did have Asperger's, it doesn't seem to have been a factor in his early release.
  • I'm not sure whether "found to be correct, leading to early release" is the right phrasing for Saunders's Alzheimer's diagnosis. Clearly it was accepted by the judge, and it did get him released, but I thought the public scepticism came after he was released and that the diagnosis wasn't subsequently confirmed. However, there isn't really enough referenced material in Saunders's article to confirm or deny this.

Of course, it might well be that Saunders had Asperger's and that it contributed to getting him released, although it doesn't seem to have been widely publicised. Grover Snodd (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Joan Smith Guardian articleEdit

Myself and another editor have reverted CoI edits by Joan Smith to both this article and the Joan Smith article also. The material is notable though might have implied that she had failed to mention that her partner was an MP when in reality she had only omitted his identity and the fact he had controversial expenses claims. My most recent revisions addressed all Joan Smith's concerns, yet rather worryingly the article has been reverted to the CoI version with additions from Smith herself! It's one thing to delete supposedly controversial material and seek discussion but to revert to a version with such obvious CoI additions really isn't appropriate.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Have re-edited to address WP:BLP concerns, without editorializing. So while it may be embarrassing now to the writer, it's not libellous. If anyone disagrees, please could they discuss here.Straw Cat (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have also been concerned at people's comments that "additions that bring the subject of a BLP to revert are clearly controversial". This may be true in some cases, but in my experience I see a great deal more CoI whitewashing of perfectly notable material by subjects than I do people coming forward with legitimate concerns. The fact that the subject has made an edit doesn't automatically make material controversial.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, so whats going on? Whitewashing and COI are the other side of the coin of adding excessive negative attacking content. Users will come and remove it and change it to balance it up that is the way of the wikipedia. I will leave it to others to NPOV but I will note it. When living people are roused to revert and complain about a users additions that is imo worthy of note. The subjects of biographical articles have a right not to be attacked and negatively portrayed on wikipedia, that right supersedes individual users right to add whatever they want to a WP:BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is ongoing at the Smith article with the subject or what looks like the subject complaining, content was added again by User:Straw Cat I have left him a note also, please consider not re-adding the material again, I will open a thread for discussion if the reverting continues, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Both myself and User:Straw Cat have addressed the concerns of Joan Smith and clarified the information. I really don't see any possible issues with Straw Cat's latest version as it seems to be an excellent compromise and there's no one "adding whatever they want" as your wrongly suggest. The terms "worthy of note" and "controversial" and entirely different. You originally used the later and I do take issue with your automatic assumption that any deletions by an article's subject have to always mean the material is in question. By all means we should listen to people's concerns (and everyone here clearly has done so), and yes of course they have a right not to be attacked, but we shouldn't automatically jump to conclusions simply because a user is the subject. I don't see why Straw Cat needs a note either, he's been discussing the issue here quite reasonably and his edits are highly commendable and his version is more balanced than that of any other user.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The content is not really informative or biographical it is just tabloid attack type additions, and users will come' as you know from history' to repeatedly remove such additions. I suggest you back of a bit and consider NPOV and BLP, our living subjects are not here to be attacked with cited attacks published in the daily mail and such other typical partisan content. I would like to replace what is there with an NPOV rewrite but I feel you will object? Do you mind if I rewrite the content in a less attacking way? Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe the content needs rewriting, I've already added some balance and in case you haven't noticed I haven't' re-added the material yet and have fully engaged in this talk page instead, therefore I don't think your suggestion I should back off is appropriate. I do agree the article taken as a whole suffers small problems in that more material needs to be added from early parts of his career. If you look at the history of the piece you'll see I've added such material previously, so instead of backing off I actually need to be more involved here if anything. Can you outline which aspects do you feel are problematic please and we can maybe work on them together and with others. Thanks. Also there's nothing at all partisan about any Daily Mail material here as proven by the police investigation that has now come about--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also finding the conduct of the user claiming to be Smith to be unwelcome. Their concerns regarding the accuracy of the material were fully addressed yesterday yet they still make false claims today suggesting the text is somehow libellous when this is clearly not the case.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Representation of Smith as a feministEdit

The lede of the BLP Joan Alison Smith (born 27 August 1953, London) is an English novelist, journalist and human rights activist, who is a former chair of the Writers in Prison committee in the English section of International PEN.

Lets attempt to portray living people as NPOV as possible, if her article lede doesn't describe her as so and so then please do not attempt tofocus on a single interest. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Other editors have already stated that Smith's article needs a considerable amount of work. I suppose we should fix that first, but I wouldn't rely on it for making any points. We already know Smith edits here herself and as of today we have an additional likely COI editor on this article too. I'd very much support the statement that the Smith article needs a rewrite.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If living people come to edit in defense of their article there is a BLP issue and consideration should be taken to a report at the BLPN. Please link up any previous report regarding the same BLP and related issues. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the editing of User:Mike b1982. No one should be removing well sourced information from the article, nor engaging in POV pushing and certainly not possible COI editors. I do seem to remember you managed to somehow prevent everyone from so much as mentioning that Harriet Harman herself was a feminist anywhere in her article, (and that problem persisted for a good few months) so I'll have to take any views on this particular matter with a pinch of salt. See this link for more info on the Harman matter:[1]--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOVEdit

Per WP:STRUCTURE and Wikipedia:BLP#Due_weight, and Wikipedia:Controversy_sections#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies - "Controversy" sections are generally a sign of a badly written article. The content, if important, should be woven throughout the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to deal with this to some extent by establishing a chronology* to the article's progression, but the 'controversies' are all from the same period, between his sacking by Blair (as MacShane has expressed it) in 2005 and his downfall over fraudulent invoices. So spreading the material through the article, as suggested where there is a NPOV issue, is not possible in this case. A thematic, rather than a chronological, structure of articles tends to lead to a disorganised mess and encourages duplication of content. (* Previously the 'controversies' section came after his downfall.) Philip Cross (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal life / relationship with Vicky PryceEdit

Some editors are removing information about a relationship with Vicky Pryce. Unless I misread something, it appears to be sourced to the Mail and Telegraph, which I think would meet the criteria as reliable sources. The section could read better (it's a bit of a laundry list), but looks factually sound. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, let's see if there is policy-based reasons to omit well sourced content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
(reply to pre=Spartaz comments, ec) Since there is no relevant "well-sourced content", that's a moot question. The material added by the IP is a textbook example of rumormongering barred by BLP policy, in particular WP:BLPGOSSIP. For all the headline text and tabloid bravado, the only relevant text in the reference added by the IP is "Ms Pryce declined to comment last night." "The Mail has been told" counts for exactly nothing. Also see the discussion at 3RRN following Sportsfan's phony complaint, which quickly concluded that the prior sourcing did support the claim of an existing/current relationship. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
My concern was your dishonest claim that the material you were deleting had no sources which is clearly false. If you had referenced that you didn't thin the source was good enough, the entire episode could have been avoided. but you chose differently, even after your false claims were clearly pointed out. In the future please use more accurate summaries so others know the stated concern. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have protected this for two days for violations of the blp. The Telegraph is too conditional a source - it is understood it says. By whom? How? And the DM? Its not an rs. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That's fine, it's getting more reporting now so an abundance of reliable sources can be utilized when it's clearly past the tipping point. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Spartaz, there are better unconditional cites about the relationship - seems a solid sourced fact from these: Daily Mail (in article title) [2], Evening Standard (central to article)[3], Daily Telegraph (pretty explicitl)[4]. It think between these 3 the RS hurdle is easily passed. Rwendland (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you don't trust legimate newspapers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.217.198 (talkcontribs)

There is a a few editors who operate in violation of WP:Civil, and when it comes to WP:BLPs will act beyond the pale despite being asked to behave. Often the result is articles being protected. This is unfortunate but it does happen. Luckily time will only bolster the position of inclusion as more reliable sources will also report on what is happening and make editing decisions blindingly obvious. Give it a little time and it will work out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually the DM is a reliable source but not strong for any contentious claims about living persons - just like the Telegraph. What BLP requires is strong sourcing, and the sources fail that test here. Collect (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hullaballoo that the sources are less clear than my initial read suggested. I don't think they're up to the standard which would be required for this statement. That said, I do think Sportfan5000 was acting in good faith when presented with those strange, one-line edit summaries. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been using that "strange one-line edit summary" hundreds of times over the last few years [5] without incident. Given Sportfan's running history of content disputes with me, it's vary hard to see their interpretation as anything other than a pretext for disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Well it was a dishonest statement, stating you're removing something as unsourced, or that sources don't exist, while deleting those sources, is disingenuous. h2g2bob has it correct, your edit summary conflicted with your editing, choosing to assume bad faith is up to you. I found your actions to be highly, and needlessly disruptive. This entire episode could have easily been resolved by just using an accurate edit summary. What you choose to do from here on is your call. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
If there's any dishonesty here, Sportfan, you're the source of it. The statement in the edit summary was "no current source." That's not "unsourced". Every edit related to a claim that and a particular circumstance was "current" (or the equivalent), and therefore required a current source. This was explained to you, rather clearly, by the users who rejected your 3RRN complaint a few days ago. You're plainly more interested in annoying The Big Bad Wolfowitz than in improving Wikipedia when you make posts like this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Deception by semantics is not ctually honesty but whatever, anyone can look at the history and see what you were doing if they wish to bother. In short; I'm rubber, you're glue, all the false allegations, and disparaging remarks fly off of me and stick to you. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Denis MacShane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denis MacShane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Denis MacShane" page.