Talk:Nigel Sweeney

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.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	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 has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Trafigura

Is there a reason that User/Judicial Commms deleted the reference to Trafigura as inaccurate?

Did Mr. Justice Sweeney not grant that injunction as reported? Richard Gadsden (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-removed the section after it was restored by JamesBWatson. The source given for it didn't mention Sweeney at all, and per WP:BLP unsourced statements about living people should be removed pending sourcing. Also, saying the injunction against the Guardian was "extremely controversial, and arguably in breach of the Bill of Rights 1689" sourced only to Guardian itself is distinctly non-neutral. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources establishing that the injunction is real such as [1]. It has been widely reported that Sweeney granted the injunction, including by Guardian journalists such as Kate Bevan; I cannot imagine that they would make this detail up if it were not true, though I cannot find a reliable source for the fact in Wikipedia's sense. I agree, however, that the comment about the injunction being controversial and "arguably" in breach of the Bill of Rights is unattributed and unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first publication that it's Sweeney appears to be [2] The Kate Bevan tweet is [3] but I don't really want to be using tweets as sources on WP. I'm happy with taking out my weasel-worded personal attack on reflection Richard Gadsden (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it seems unlikely the Guardian journalists just made it up. Still, we'll have to hope that a reliable source does get to publish it at some point. If it does then I could see re-inserting the Bill of Rights comment as long as it's clear it's an accusation by the Guardian. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there will be a publication in a court report eventually - but that will be weeks at the soonest, and possibly months. Richard Gadsden (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks has a copy of the injunction, [4] but it's Mr. Justice Maddison not Sweeney. Curiouser and curiouser. Richard Gadsden (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]