Talk:Gerry Gable

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gerry Gable article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unverified Information

I have flagged this article as containing unverified information and requiring referencing. The article contains several assertions concerning Gable's dealings with the law without providing verifiable material. Paulleake 18:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:212.85.13.68 has now given the article some references to back up the claim Gable has worked for British security. I have edited the article slightly to ensure it still says he is 'accused' rather than he 'did' collaborate as while the source is definitely enough for the encylopedia to show that Gable has been accused, I don't think it is enough, on its own, to say in an encylcopedia entry, that Gable did work for them. Paulleake 15:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irving

Despite being accused of Holocaust Denial both in civil litagation and convicted of such in European state (Austria) David Irving is still an established historian. Removing words to that effect and insisting he is simply a holocaust denier is unjustified, as is removing comments clearly tagged as {{Fact}} which are awaiting the addition of sources, from the entry for Gerry Gable. Unfortunately it seems politically motivated elements are moderating without any appreciation for reality.

Irving was never an "established historian." He has no academic qualifications, and at the time you're discussing, he had written only one book, so far as I know, some key points of which were later shown to be false. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note with interest that throughout the earliar civil trials and even during the latest trial in austria the press refered to Irving as 'British Historian David Irving'thou as soon as he was convicted all that was scrubbed and he was refered to as 'Holocaust Denier David Irving'. However many times you try and revert the entry and say he was never a historian it doesnt change the fact he is. No one was debating whether he was in fact a holocaust revisionist/denier, as that man has made numerous comments to that effect in the past.

Some {{Fact}} removed and citations added, this is a slow process as it involves looking through microfilm. Please avoid removing ^{[citation needed]} indicators because you dont agree with the comment awaiting a citation.

Despite attempts to clean up POV bias in this entry, someone constantly removes any references to David Irving being a historian. Despite the press, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm, http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/, http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-20T194417Z_01_L19135626_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AUSTRIA-IRVING.xml, http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=266392006 and even his critics ^{[citation needed]} being happy to refer to him as such. As an author of over 30 historical books, its not an unreasonable term of reference.

I would question the veracity of the article Smashing Against Rocks; it is credited to Matthew Collins, who was Gable's poodle. From the tone of the article I wouldn't be surprised if it was written by Gable himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: SlimVirgin, is now attempting to enforce his own form of revision by claiming my attempts to clean up and combat POV on this entry are breaking the three revert rule. Replacing valid, relevant material you spuriously delete isnt breaking the 3r rule. Please try to maintain impartiality and also please don't make threats about locking the entry/moderation.

The headlines accompanying the sources for information on Gable's arrest have been arbitrarily removed. I'll replace them once I'm back at work and can view the microfilm.

User: SlimVirgin is now attempting to revert the added material with threats under the 3 revert rule. Again for the record the citations I added can be checked and verified. Replacing citated material removed by someone sabotaging an entry doesnt violate the 3 revert rule imho.

Yes, it does. 3RR is not content-dependent. See WP:3RR. Also, please sign your posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The David Irving"?

I assume this is vandalism. I will remove the definite article. Drutt (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Let's get a photo on this article. Does somebody have one to which they own copyright or passes the Wikipedia rules on copyright material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gable Gez (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

On "Charitable fraud and misconduct"; innuendo and POV, sourced only to a BNP deadlink. This is hardly an unbiased source, even if it was live. Per WP:BLP, we can't have this sort of thing hanging around and I've put this article on my watchlist. Rodhull andemu 22:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link is not dead, it's working fine. The BNP would be the ONLY source for information on this, there are no other organisations which bring public this sort of information, so leaving out this information would be the only bias - not its inclusion. I can see no non-factual statements that do not have citations. Please clarity what you believe to be innuendo and POV so that the article can be tidied up, rather than removing whole sections you simply don't agree with. Thanks 81.105.9.22 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is not a negotiable policy. Such allegations require scrupulous sourcing, and we don't include the BNP in that category, since they clearly have an axe to grind against Gable. It goes, and it stays gone until it has a reliable source. Please post one here, because if necessary, I will lock this article against editing. Rodhull andemu 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Searchlight_(magazine) I will update the article with more citations now. The BNP, while may having "an axe to grind", are also the ONLY source who expose the far left so are an invaluable source for true fairnes. 81.105.9.22 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion is divided on that point. If Gable said that about Nick Griffin, without sources, it would be equally as invalid. Rodhull andemu 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the above link:

Charitable status

At the insistence of the British National Party, Searchlight and the associated Searchlight Educational Trust were investigated by the British Charity Commission of England and Wales as a result of a complaint that claimed that the Educational Trust had been engaging in political activity incompatible with its charitable status.

The Commission's report stated that, in its opinion, the Searchlight Educational Trust had gone beyond the Commission's guidelines on political activities, and found there was a need for a greater distinction between the public activities of Searchlight Magazine and the educational trust. No action was taken as the charity agreed to follow the Commission's recommendations. [1]

Clearly the evidence is available and you have a personal bias for not wanting it to be displayed in the artile and threatening me with bans which is a severe disreard for the rules, and more importantly, the spirit, of Wikipedia.

The section you keep removing is more than justified, it is relevant, proven and from multiple sources, and clearly related to Gables political activities. 81.105.9.22 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question now is are you going to grow up and work with me to put this factual information in to the article or are you going to stick by your, as of yet reasonally explained, desire to keep this vital information out of the article? I think 3RR comes in to play if I do it again and you can't claim vandalism as I've already shown the information to be valid to a standard of another article 81.105.9.22 (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. We are not reliable sources for ourselves, so what is on another article is irrelevant 2. The above link in no way supports a contention of "In January 2009, Gable was accused of fraudulently accepting public good-willed charitable donations to "help sick and disabled children""; only the BNP say that, and we don't regard them as a reliable source against Gable/Searchlight. WP:ANI awaits your complaint. WP:3RR does not apply to WP:BLP issues. It is specifically exempt. Rodhull andemu 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. If it is good enough for another article, it is good enough for this one also. 2. I am willing to remove this section until further citations can be found. This was in print media in my local area, I will look in to this as a citation. "we don't regard them as a reliable source" -- who is "we"? I find them a very reliable source being the only organisation to highlight the crimes of Gable. What other source brings this information to the public attention?

Do you have any other issues if the disabled funding line is removed? I will add further citations to the article as per the link to the Charity Commission - or are they not a reliable source also?

I'm glad your manner has improved since calling you up on it - there is no need for threats and personal bias 81.105.9.22 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot say, or imply, anything that is not in a reliable source. It remains moot what Gable's role is in the charities mentioned, and IIRC he is not cited in the CC judgement- so it's also debatable what relevance it has to

this article. On balance, I think it's OK in the Searchlight article but not here because the way it was written looked like an attempt to besmirch Gable and without a direct mention of him, it's innuendo. Rodhull andemu 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate how it may look, but Gable setup the charity and it's his main focus now. I think this makes it very relevant to the article, what he did and what he's doing. I am willing to agree that some of the s.e.t. specific information could be left out, with just a reference to s.e.t. page for further information. The information can be restricted specifically to Gables role in s.e.t. Do you have any further objections or issues to raise? 81.105.9.22 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as long as you stick to what the source says. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we've managed to resolve this quickly. Of course there was no need to remove the entire section since with a few minor tweaks it can reflect now what we have agreed, but anyway. Also since you're so interested in this article, I think it needs a photograph. There is one picture specifically that is on the web and has been used more times than even Google can count; having looked at the fair image use rules I believe it can be used within the guidelines of copyright law since it's relevant, widely available in the public domain, would cause no financial loss to anybody, and so on. The image is repeated 6 times on the first page alone, the one I refer to is the most common one there: http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=Gerry%20Gable I've already checked Commons but it has none. Would you like to put the photograph in? 81.105.9.22 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images of living people are always problematical. The one you refer to cannot be assumed to be free of copyright, and so cannot be used here, how ever many other people have "appropriated" it. The rationale is that some editor with a camera could take their own image and upload it to commons free of copyright. Not very practical, but there has to be an overwhelming reason why we can't use a free image. Have you looked on flickr.com? Unlikely, perhaps, but someone there might have an image with a usable licence here- it has to be CC-BY-(SA)-2.0 or higher. My other vandals have gone quiet for now, so I'll take look... and there's nothing there. Rodhull andemu 21:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already looked for free images and cannot find one, but even though this *could* be a copyright image, the copyright law has a fair usage clause in it and according to Wikipedias own guidelines, the image in question passes all of the tests, a few of which I mentioned above. I have also updated the article as per our discussion, please let me have your thoughts. 81.105.9.22 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is more restrictive than general copyright law (bearing in mind we are referring to US law here, since that's where our servers are located). In particular, an image of some other website would fail WP:NFCC#1 = "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" - the copyright gurus would say, "well, you could photograph him at some public event", regardless of how difficult that might be. So, I don't think we'd last five minutes with that one. Rodhull andemu 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear references

There is a lot of material in this article with citations such as "Daily Telegraph, January 15, 1964". Given that this is a WP:BLP, I think we need more than this. At a minimum we need the article's title. The author and page number would help too. Can someone provide these please? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially as the cited articles often predate on-line archiving of newspapers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree that the material sourced to these sources should be removed? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it all - 9 months is long enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

Perhaps you can explain why you have deleted his corrected date of birth - his birth certificate has been posted on-line.

Perhaps you can also explain why you have deleted all references to the libel action he lost against Morris Riley. Again, the documentation has been posted on-line. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 86.176.101.178 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the date of birth - we don't use photocopies of anything online in this way. I don't know who removed the other material although it might have been me, but again it would need to be sourced to an official website. See WP:VERIFY and WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered this possibly related book: Baron, Alexander [One Who Was There] (2002). Riley v Gable & others : a report on proceedings in the High Court, London, February 17 to February 23, 2000 : including the background to the Searchlight libel actions. London: Anglo-Hebrew. ISBN 9781898318897. OCLC 477250995..--Auric talk 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerry Gable. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Never heard of him before today, came to talk page to note it's odd he's completely disappeared for the past thirty years - only to find apparently this article itself is rather controversial in having a great deal of information (properly or improperly) removed. Anyways, nobody able to find out what he's been doing since about 1992? LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]