Jump to content

Talk:David Simpson (Northern Ireland politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who should be at this page

[edit]

Almost have the links here are for David Simpson (politician) (I only put the disambig in there to allow a page to be created) - anyone care to judge which is the better known? Timrollpickering 20:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency office incident

[edit]

I added accurate and sourced material concerning the discovery of a hidden camera at Simpson's constituency office. User:Valenciano, who has past form on deleting material about sex scandals involving Unionist politicians (see Davy Tweed), deleted this on the bizarre grounds that 'we shouldn't be attempting "guilt by association"'. It was certainly a newsworthy event and nothing in the para implied any guilt on Simpson's part. I have reinstated the para and request that any further attempt to excise it be discussed here. Brocach (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if there's no guilt on Simpson's part then why is such a blatant bit of coatrackery in the article? No, per WP:BLP it doesn't belong. ps I haven't removed anything from the Davy Tweed article, as the sex scandal is relevant to Davy Tweed. Valenciano (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that there was no guilt - I have no reason to believe that there is, but what I think is irrelevant: my point is that I did not, as you alleged, raise "guilt by association". The toilet cam incident happened at David Simpson MP's constituency office; David Simpson MP personally reported the incident to the police; [redacted for BLP concerns]. All in all, I reckon that David Simpson features in this widely reported news story and that mention of it, albeit only in two lines, is appropriate in an article on David Simpson. Nothing in this paragraph infringes WP policy on biographies of living persons, nor does it offend against any other WP guidelines. Brocach (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until Simpson's guilt or participation is proved then it shouldn't be in. Again, the controversy attaches to McConaghy, not Simpson, so we are steering very close to WP:BLP violations here. Per WP:BRD you shouldn't be adding it back while this discussion is ongoing, that's even before we get to the fact that you've breached WP:1RR which applies to Troubles and British nationalism in Ireland articles (which this clearly is.) Valenciano (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never before seen anyone suggest that "guilt" or "participation" are required before a significant incident can be included in a BLP article. Can you say where you came across this concept? The fact that the incident happened in Simpson's office, apparently involving his long-serving aide, is enough to justify its inclusion. I can't agree that a Troubles-related rule is engaged in relation to hiding a camera in a toilet. Brocach (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For inclusion in a BLP, the incident would have to be relevant to the BLP, here it's hard to see the relevance, thus it verges on WP:ATTACK. What is the relevance to Simpson's political career, since it's included in that section? Are there any other politicians articles which include sections on employees of the MP dismissed for wrongdoing, where the MP was not involved in the wrongdoing? Also yes, the 1RR applies to any article involving the troubles or british nationalism in Ireland, which this clearly is. I don't see any sections in that rule which say: "Oh by the way, if you want to include attack style sections, not relevant to the biography, breaking 1RR is A-OK." Add to that, WP:BRD: you were bold in adding it, it got reverted, now it stays out while we discuss. Valenciano (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so very keen to keep out of the Simpson article any mention of the toilet affair? You have falsely accused me of raising "guilt by association" when nothing that I added reflected guilt on Simpson. You claim, incredibly, that you find it "hard to see" the relevance to Simpson's political career of the arrest of [redacted for BLP concerns] for an offence allegedly committed in Simpson's constituency office and reported to the police by Simpson himself who is likely to be a witness in any ensuing court proceedings. You claimed that this material shouldn't be in "until Simpson's guilt or participation is proved" - a rule you made up on the spot - then demanded examples of other BLP articles mentioning wrongdoing by third parties. Without for a second accepting that nothing can go into a BLP article unless something very similar appears in another BLP article - another made-up rule - let me direct you to Peter Robinson. You claim, wrongly, that the addition of this material engages a rule relating to the "Troubles and British nationalism in Ireland" - it doesn't. You denied that you removed material relating to the Davy Tweed sex scandal - you did, three times, at the Traditional Unionist Voice page.
As you turn so often to WP jargon when disagreeing with any other editor, I would like to suggest that you re-familiarise yourself with a few of the terms that you fling about. WP:BRD: "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow... BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." You falsely accuse me of coatrackery: re-read that definition, there is no "irrelevant and biased material" here, everything added is relevant, true and neutral. WP:ATTACK: "An attack page is a page... that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject"; this is not and never has been such a page.
I have made a good-faith edit, you have now removed three times material that is accurate, sourced and entirely relevant to the subject, and that is neutrally worded - there is no "attack" here. You have given no valid reason for censoring the piece in this way.
We need to find a way forward here. I am not happy with this remarkable story being swept away from the article where it belongs, and I think that you need to be more reasonable about this and reconsider your position, possibly by editing that paragraph into a form that you think is acceptable. You do not own the article and cannot keep snipping the item out altogether. Can I ask: (1) Do you still maintain that the office incident is not relevant to Simpson? (2) Can you show where exactly in the excised paragraph there is anything that attacks Simpson, shows any bias, is untrue, or implies that he is guilty of anything? (3) Can you show anything anywhere in the censored wording that offends against any WP rule or principle? Brocach (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely reworded coverage now added, stressing Simpson's role, adding a further source and direct quotes. Brocach (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very simply because it isn't relevant to Simpson and seems to have been added purely to introduce a bit of negativity/controversy into the article. The "scandal" as it were, affects [redacted for BLP concerns] and I still haven't seen any other politicians article where wrongdoing by a third party is chucked in in such a dubious way. Your Peter Robinson analogy is inaccurate since in that case Robinson himself was accused of wrongdoing and hiding what he knew about his wife's dealings with the end result that he stepped down as first minister for a while. So I do believe the material added here violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS among others. Re the Tweed stuff, you accused me of "censoring" stuff.... I replied that I hadn't removed anything from the TWEED ARTICLE, which is where the controversy properly belongs, we'll come back to that one on the appropriate page but I'm happy to wait a while longer to see what develops there. Regarding your breach of 1RR, yes you did, here's what the relevant policy says: "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." This article is unquestionably related to British nationalism and there are NO CONTENT BASED EXCEPTIONS allowed.
I believe here we should ask for a third opinion as this has come to a bit of a standstill. Valenciano (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other opinions certainly welcome, although no-one else appears to have taken exception to the inclusion of successive versions of this over the past couple of weeks. As the Robinson parallel didn't convince you, here's another instance of a politician's bio including reference to his involvement in dealing with a criminal offence by a third party: Stewart Jackson. Brocach (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Jackson one should also be removed under WP:NOTNEWS criteria. I'll wait for the outcome of this one first though. Valenciano (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on David Simpson (Northern Ireland politician) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The text introduced in this edit and previous versions directly violate WP:BLPCRIME and cannot be included in Wikipedia until the criminal charges are resolved. I would ordinarily merely give my opinion, but WP:BLPREMOVE requires this kind of material to be immediately removed, so I am going to do that and have redacted the foregoing discussion for the same reason. Note that this is a BLP violation as to the person arrested; I express no opinion as to whether or not it is a BLP violation as to Simpson. I also express no opinion about whether this material might be rewritten in a way so as to avoid the BLP violation as to the person arrested, but even if it can (and I would suggest clearing any rewrite through the BLP Noticeboard before posting it to the article) it may dilute the incident so much that it would be WP:UNDUE to include it here, but that cannot be resolved until the rewrite is seen and, preferably, blessed by BLPN. If discussion over that becomes stuck, you may request a new Third Opinion at that time or move on to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Supplement after initial posting: If you disagree with my removals, please take the issue to BLPN for an opinion before restoring the material.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this to be a misinterpretation of WP:BLPCRIME on the basis that the person arrested is WP:WELLKNOWN, and also regret your insistence that discussion of your radical edit can only happen at BLPN: this is not normal for a third opinion procedure. I have, however, set out my case there. Brocach (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Valenciano. I also get the feeling Brocach just simply wants to add embarrassing information into unionist articles. Mabuska (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "only one editor objected." Really? Well let's see, me, Mabuska above, that's two. The third opinion above: "I also express no opinion about whether this material might be rewritten in a way so as to avoid the BLP violation as to the person arrested, but even if it can (and I would suggest clearing any rewrite through the BLP Noticeboard before posting it to the article) it may dilute the incident so much that it would be WP:UNDUE to include it here." From the BLP noticeboard: "I also fail to see what it adds to the article in question". The article about the main person involved was deleted and a plea to the closing admin to reconsider produced the advice: "I'd encourage you both to work together to find appropriate ways to give due weight to truly notable political events and people, without too much focus on the "scandal of the day" that will be forgotten tomorrow." That's input from multiple editors and none of it seems to me to support the inclusion of this non-notable news story. Valenciano (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Simpson (Northern Ireland politician). 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) 12:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Simpson (Northern Ireland politician). 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) 14:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Simpson_(Northern_Ireland_politician)&oldid=1206441819"