Talk:Roger Helmer

Potentially libelous information

As long as the contributed information can be verified through a third-party source, there is no risk of being considered libelous. The removed section on "Homophobia controversy" is therefore not libelous, whether or not it casts the subject of the article in an unfavorable light. Recommend it be returned to the article. Alan (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've restored it. I invite P-office to specify what part of the section s/he finds libellous. MaesterTonberry (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have withdrawn it, as it is not accurate - you cannot post something about somebody which is factually incorrect. P-office (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Helmer's comment is sourced, the response to his comment is sourced and Helmer's defence is sourced. What part of the section is inaccurate or factually incorrect? MaesterTonberry (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent pre-election changes and removal of properly sourced information.

I'm trying to write a wp:npov article here, not an election leaflet and I hope that's true for everyone else. If Helmer has made his views known and they are significant, reliably sourced, accurately and fairly reported and we give his reasons for saying them, then we have no right whatsoever to omit them on the ground that we later think he made a mistake. This applies to his views on rape as well as his views on homosexuality. wp:blp allows criticism from significant people as well as praise. RegardsJRPG (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In that connection, this article in the Independent is surely helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:Suggested sources one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun." I tend to stick to the Guardian, Telegraph, BBC & Independent & attribute statements of opinion. We can't prove what Helmer did or didn't say & hence he couldn't have sued but I think a short summary of the Independent article quoting his stated views & avoiding wp:undue would be helpful. Having worked with a number of reporters -including the Mail, I've been impressed with the effort they've made to avoid inaccuracy & am astonished that such a disagreement occurred ..though its peripheral to this Wikipedia article. Do you want to write it up? JRPG (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was impulsive when I clicked the revert button on your revert, but if Hemer didn't want to be quoted by the Daily Mail then he shouldn't have agreed to be interviewed by them. The summary of the Independent article is just apologism and my edits reflect what he actually said. Meanwhile, nothing in that whole section refers to Helmer's "christian beliefs" - all of it is about his views on homosexuality and the word "homophobia". Change the section heading to "Views on homosexuality" if you like, though.Stroller (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just recovering from a pulse of fury occasioned by the erroneous belief you had reverted without discussion:) I'm an atheist but I know most politicians view religion simply as a vote winner. You're correct in thinking my main objection was to the title as the Mail article is supported by the Independent. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to take it on -- I've just been left in the lurch by my childminder and have charge of an urchin this afternoon… I agree with sticking to the Independent as the key source here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for a rapid response. I thought as a matter of courtesy I ought to give you first bite! JRPG (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Massage

I removed the section on Helmer having a massage as "not notable, covered only by tabloids". JRPG undid this as "Good faith but covered by both Leicester Mercury and Derby Telegraph which are not tabloids." Wikipedia describes both the Leicester Mercury and the Derby Telegraph as tabloids. Regardless, why is this notable? cagliost (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Cagliost. I chose one of my words carelessly. Tabloid as a pejorative term for a rags like the Sun has been overtaken by events as all UK newspapers are tabloid format. I should have said wp:reliable source which excludes Tabloid journalism -see Red top section.

WP:Suggested_sources#Current_news includes local papers. Why is it notable? BLP rules rightly preclude removing cited info just because it's critical. Here it's an incident involving Helmer's privacy and lifestyle but much more importantly there is an element of hypocrisy as he has been very critical of others because of his faith. I didn't add the original citation though the section was much edited in October 2014. I've now minimized the incident & included it with a renamed section on homosexuality -itself in need of a serious prune under wp:undue. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Need to make it clearer that it's not just a massage parlour, it's a "sleazy" massage parlour with the motto "Driving men wild since 1999", which "invites clients to have a “wild” time and an “adventure of the physical kind”." Otherwise it's not obvious why it's an issue. I'm not sure how to phrase this in an encyclopaedic way. cagliost (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@TheRealMichaelGreen and Cagliost: I note someone removed the reference to the massage parlour. I've re-inserted it because -to repeat, he is showing hypocrisy. I also changed the description from "massage parlour" to "sleazy massage parlour" in quotes as suggested by cagliost. This may meet the objections of TheRealMichaelGreen. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roger Helmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100429160211/http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_the_European_Parliament/Helmer_Roger.aspx to http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_the_European_Parliament/Helmer_Roger.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roger Helmer. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.micandidate.eu/candidate.aspx?idcandidate=2650&idconstituency=119
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821100246/http://www.rogerhelmer.com/biog.asp to http://www.rogerhelmer.com/biog.asp
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140506151509/http://www.ukip.org/ukip_announces_newark_parliamentary_by_election_candidate to http://www.ukip.org/ukip_announces_newark_parliamentary_by_election_candidate

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)