Talk:John Hemming (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright of included material

I hold the copyright on the article proposed and am entirely happy that it be used in Wikipedia - John Hemming. Why Andy Mabbett is stressed about this I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.106.9 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 25 December 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore although I don't get massively stressed about it I have not had 26 affairs - OK so I won't give the number, but it is materially lower than 26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.105.85 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to update with the correct number.87.74.9.8 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Reading through this article, it reads too much like a personal advertisement for John Hemming. Whilst it is right to mention his role against electoral fraud and his achievements in parliament, do we really need to know about his commitment to bingo? Also, why is nothing said regarding the criticisms levelled against him (since John Hemming happens to be my local MP, I know full well that such criticisms are plentiful) which can be readily referenced with appropriate sources? --Crablogger (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We should be careful about including criticisms unless they're particularly significant and backed by reliable sources (like the mention of extramarital affairs, which is already included), but I agree that this article does seem somewhat promotional. I don't think things like his positions on bingo need to be noted. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted to my previous edit after an unregistered user tried to restore the POV and unsourced material previously deleted. Is it possible to have this article blocked to prevent this activity if the problem persists? --Crablogger (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You can make a request for article semi-protection at WP:RFPP. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 13:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Crablogger, it's wholly inappropriate for you to be editing this page. You openly support the conservative party and you may well be one of this MPs constituents, as you also live very close to Birmingham Yardley. While the article is no doubt imbalanced, it's really not acceptable for you to be editing the article. To that extent Wikipedia is being used as part of an election campaign rather than in an objective manner, and as a result, I've reverted your edits back to JzG's version. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, my only concern is to maintain WP:NPOV on this article, as I mentioned on your talk page. As to my supporting the Conservatives, that is purely limited to a single userbox on my talkpage, so I feel your remarks about "openly supporting them" are unfair. Also, if you say it is against Wikipedia policy for people to edit articles about the areas they come from, then kindly show me where in Wikipedia policy that is the case, and I will gladly stop my edits, but kindly do not make accusations simply on the basis of my place of origin. --Crablogger (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We should look to improve the article, your edits removed content that appears totally fine, also you removed six or seven citations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then please tell me which content you do not wish to be removed and I will gladly keep them on the article. Otherwise, this reads too much like a personal advertisement for John Hemming. --Crablogger (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it, add some citations, none of the content is controversial at all. Off2riorob (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was, but with extramarital affairs, is it absolutely necessary to learn that he voted himself Love Rat of the Year? Also, some areas, such as converting his car to vegetable oil, referenced or not, do not think these belong on a Wikipedia article as per WP:FLUFFYBUNNIES. --Crablogger (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he was one of the first people to convert is interesting, perhaps the first politician is notable, I will look at sourcing that, please don't simply remove stuff you don't like, try adding something. Yes it is important in the story that he nominated himself as love rat. Off2riorob (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Feline felony

The last paragraph of the article states that "his wife appeared in court charged with stealing his mistresses' cat". This suggests that two or more of Mr Hemming's many mistresses co-owned a single cat. Is this true? If not, perhaps the grammar could be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.215.246 (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

On The Sun and sourcing

A few things - first, if you want to challenge the consensus on a page by removing material which has been there for a significant period of time then go ahead and be bold, but if your revision is reverted it’s probably a good idea to head to the talk page discuss your proposed changes with other editors before simply adding it back. Second, you can’t really justify deleting material with citations from the Daily Mail, the Birmingham Post, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, The Sun and The Guardian with a short edit summary claiming “The Sun is not a reliable source”. It doesn’t make sense. Finally, the Sun is usually considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. If you feel it shouldn’t be then that’s fine, but the way to make that case is not to use an existing biographical article as a test subject for your argument.Hobson (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you link me to a discussion confirming that The Sun is a reliable source? And what of the Daily Star? Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If the edit has controversial WP:BLP material, it should not generally be sourced to a tabloid (The Sun, Daily Star etc). These sources are prone to gossip and hype over private lives.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have links to any such discussion about the Sun, nor about the Daily Mail, Birmingham Post, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mirror or Guardian. However, the Sun is usually considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, as shown by the fact that it is used by editors as a source (for one example, see David Cameron, which currently cites The Sun).

The Star was not actually used as a source in the material you deleted. Neither was the Sun the only source. The particular sentence attributed to the Sun (the "love rat" thing) has appeared in other sources, as I was able to confirm after 30 seconds on Google (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1500176/MP-gets-own-vote-as-love-rat.html). This is research you could easily do yourself and would help to improve the article far more than deleting large sections without discussion is every likely to achieve.Hobson (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• If the Telegraph has it, use the telegraph. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not and never has been a valid argument. Both The Sun and The Star are unreliable rags, and to suggest different is to completely misunderstand both British tabloid newspapers and the requirements of WP:BLP. Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you will see that it states comparisons are sometimes invalid and sometimes valid. If you believe they are never valid then you are welcome to your view - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only an essay with comments and advice, after all, and has no authority. But once again, I think you are discussing this on the wrong talk page. You might raise your concerns on the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discussion page? It seems to me that when considering which sources are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, it is perfectly sensible to look at the judgments other editors have made and see what we can learn from them. I'm not sure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is intended to suggest otherwise. 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobson (talk • contribs)

• Rephrase, then; can you please qualify your statement that tabloid newspapers are acceptable sources for articles with some evidence that there is a generalised, rather than specific, consensus? Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not going to use this talk page to get into a debate about the difference between a "generalised consensus" vs a "specific consensus", whatever that means. That is not what this talk page is for.

The important points here, which you refuse to address, are that the information you are seeking to delete is verified by a wide range of sources, not just tabloids; the Star, which you repeatedly bring up, is not even used as a source in the material you seek to delete; the one sentence which cites the Sun is also verified by other sources; once it has become clear to you that there is no consensus for deleting information from an article which has been verified by a range of sources then you should not continue attempting to delete it without consensus simply to make a WP:POINT.Hobson (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, not the Star, the Mirror. One sentence is verified by the Mirror alone, one by the Sun alone. This is fairly clear and simple to work out. So again; why, precisely, are these sources reliable? Ironholds (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article and the talk page. I have provided an alternative reference for the sentence attributed to the Sun, which you are any editor can add into the article if you believe it is needed. The sentence attributed to the Mirror already has a second source - the Daily Telegraph - just as it did when you deleted it.

Unless anyone has a problem with the Daily Telegraph, there should be a consensus on the current article text pretty much as it stands. Hobson (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly we have various different qualities (ahem) of newspapers here in the UK. The Times is Ok to cite, the Telegraph, the Guardian ..... but the Sun and others of that ilk can't be considered to be completely 'reliable'. Sad, but true. Reader numbers take priority over factual accuracy with some publications; stick to the ones which people generally recommend :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true, although I'm not sure I'd put the Mirror and the Star in the same category myself. However, what we're actually discussing here is material verified by a range of sources.Hobson (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Again - two clauses are verified only by those papers. If you are aware of reliable sources covering them, substitute said sources for the rags. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In the sections you deleted, the Mirror is cited once alongside a Daily Telegraph article which contains the same information. The Sun is cited once and I have dug out a Telegraph article with the same information, as you will see if you scroll up a little. I believe the article is fine as it is, but I have made the effort to find another source in an attempt to be helpful to other editors. You could also find more sources, if you believe they are needed, in about 60 seconds on Google, if you were so inclined.

As you are not willing to read the article and the material on this talk page as I have politely requested I don't believe further debate between us will be helpful.Hobson (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Again, if the same information is found elsewhere include that information. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The daily telegraph article contained a wonderfully dismissive comment by Hemming on his rivals, so I added it to the article with the source. Coolug (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not living with wife

BBC "that he finally left their marital home three days before the theft." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.91.171 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)