Wikipedia

Talk:Chris Philp

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Smartse in topic Conflict of interest
Learn more about this page

Chris Philp revisions

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please advise if 'anonymous' who will not allow me to add factual content to Chris Philp's page is in anyway connected with him? Jojogungun (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Would be grateful if you could explain why you believe Companies House and a local authority website are 'baffling sources'. The content I have added is factual and if you believe otherwise please give your reasons and sources. Also, as asked previously, please confirm if you are connected to Chris Philp MP in anyway and therefore have a conflict of interest. Jojogungun (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Full protection

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have fully protected the article for 2 days to stop the edit warring. The parties should come here to talk page, explain what they want done to the article and why, and work it out. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Philp. 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) 01:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Philp. 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) 08:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Explaining how a wikipage is sourced

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

To the Wandsworth-based IPs that have been reverting the removal of poorly sourced and repetitive material that flatters the subject, while removing material that is well-sourced but not so flattering: Wikipedia is not a place where subjects of pages or their supporters get to promote the subject. Material is included if it is reliably sourced and noteworthy.

  • That Clearstone went into administration is sourced to secondary sources. It's noteworthy.
  • Pluto finance was covered twice; there's no need to repeat the same thing.
  • There needs to be proper secondary sourcing for the claims about the charity. As I noted in a previous edit, I couldn't find any substantial material about this charity (not even on the Mercers website, which was puzzling). It is therefore not clear that it is noteworthy as content. If it's important enough to be mentioned, then there should be independent sources providing information about the charity.
  • The claim that a book he co-authored "was an important contribution to the modernisation of the Conservative Party" needs to be very well sourced (multiple respectable, reliable sources). It isn't.
  • That he described a rail company as "abysmal" - I have no idea why this needs to go in. It wasn't a phrase that got any particular secondary source attention as far as I can see. The text as it is makes it clear he is critical of the company. Adding rhetoric from him threatens the neutrality of the page (and so we'd have to include responses from the company etc etc etc and it would become a content fork.)
  • The praise for a book he wrote on housing comes from the person who published the book. That's not secondary sourcing. Praise and noteworthiness need to come from independent sources.

It's great that you want to contribute to the encyclopedia, but please familiarise yourself with how sourcing and material inclusion works.OsFish (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

UPDATE: The IP editor has reverted again and apparently seems unaware that "talkpage" means the article talkpage, as they started a conversation on the talk page for one of their ever-changing Wandsworth IP addresses. I have linked to the conversation here. I think it's safe to assume that they are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates, in particular how sourcing works, including the importance of reliable sourcing, including using the subject's own website. I hope they can now come here and read.OsFish (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
To Osfish.
This page has come under repeated attack by trolls over a period of a few years - mostly politically motivated to turn this into an attack page. To keep this clear and due to time constraints I have addressed one of your initial points below. Please take the tone as amicably intended.
"There needs to be proper secondary sourcing for the claims about the charity. As I noted in a previous edit, I couldn't find any substantial material about this charity (not even on the Mercers website, which was puzzling). It is therefore not clear that it is noteworthy as content. If it's important enough to be mentioned, then there should be independent sources providing information about the charity."
The creation of the charity ought to be noteworthy. Third party source - https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/chris-philp/
Perhaps we can just change it to say "Philp also created the charity The Next Big Thing, a business plan competition for inner-city teenagers in years 12 and 13." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:E0B4:1A00:7503:59A7:8E06:D804 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate that pages about living politicians can become attack pages, and there is a need to defend against both that and attempts by the subject and their supporters to turn it into hagiography. It's true of all living people, which is why there are stricter rules about sourcing - see WP:BLP. In particular, this section:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

So all information, positive or negative, needs to be reliably sourced. So, regarding this charity: the politics.co.uk link has the wrong date for the charity start up, and the wrong address for his facebook page. It isn't reliable for this material. It appears to be simply a repeat of details given by the MP himself. So, the question is: is there anything independently covering "Next Big Thing"?
I really don't mean to be difficult, but a noteworthy charity ought to have some sort of digital footprint. When I went through replacing self-sourcing with independent sources, it was simply odd that I couldn't find reports of the charity engaged in any activities. I couldn't find anything about the Mercer's taking it over. I checked the register at the charities commission, and it appears never to have been registered as a charity. I clicked on the website, and it's defunct.
So then I used the wayback machine to access archived versions of the site, and...it just gets weird. The earliest version of the Next Big Thing site that Wayback has archived is 2013, which says NBT started in 2010, not 2009. On there, it quotes a Liverpool Hope University report on Next Big Thing. Of course, such a report would be great evidence of the organisation's noteworthiness and this conversation would be wrapped up here. However, I cannot find that quote indexed on google, nor can I find anything on Next Big Thing on the Liverpool Hope web domain. A later version says Next Big Thing is holding its finals in November 2014 at Lord's Cricket Ground, with the MCC participating. Again, this would be something that should produce independent coverage. However, I can't find anything about it. The links it gives haven't been indexed by wayback, and searching "Next Big Thing" "Lord's Cricket Ground" doesn't produce any results for me about any NBT finals. A later version of the site announces that Crest Academy won the Lord's Cricket Ground event, but when I search the webdomain for Crest Academy in Brent, I can find no reference to "Next Big Thing". If I search for the three schools - "chobham academy" "crest academy" "cambridge heath" named in the finals together, I get no results about a final, just a few school directory listings. I don't understand this. There would normally be either local newspaper coverage or something on the school website. An August 2016 archived version of the site says that the March 2015 finals were sponsored by Saatchi and Saatchi. They're a notable company, and so one would expect there to be some digital noise in the media. However, again, I can't find anything on google about this. "Saatchi & Saatchi" "Next Big Thing" "finals" yields zero results.
I don't know if you are personally connected to Philp (if so, please read WP:COI), but do you have any idea what's going on? I'm usually good at tracking down sources, and this is genuinely perplexing. Where is the independent coverage of the organisation's activities? Also, given that your IP address keeps changing every time you edit, it would help if you could register an account. OsFish (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Wales, Jimmy (16 May 2006). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l (Mailing list). Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 22 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
    Wales, Jimmy (19 May 2006). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l (Mailing list). Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 22 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018. If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
    Wales, Jimmy (4 August 2006). "Archives/Jimbo Keynote". Wikimania 2006. Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 8 August 2006. Retrieved 22 June 2018. One of the social things that I think we can do is WP:BIO [...] I think social policies have evolved in recent years, I mean the recent months, to actually handle this problem a lot better. A lot of the admins and experienced editors are taking a really strong stand against unsourced claims, which is always a typical example of the problem. [...] And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, 'Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ', yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.

Education

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section "Early life and education" mentions his "studying" physics at university. In itself this means almost nothing. Did he get a degree, and if so, what class? Insulation2 (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the source gives information as to when he matriculated (1994), so he would have graduated in 1997. There are other sources online that also mention him studying physics, but I haven't yet found anything saying what class degree he received. Ellwat (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Conflict of interest

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The combination of removing well-sourced negative content and addition of poorly-sourced promotional content in recent edits by Greenface47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Aunyjudy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly suggestive of these accounts having an undisclosed conflict of interest. SmartSE (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given the lack of communication from either user, I have reverted all their edits. SmartSE (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Philp&oldid=1257613937"