Talk:David Mills financial allegations

Untitled

This article was moved from a separate article entitled Jowellgate - which is now just a redirect to the Tessa Jowell page Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following POV from the Tessa Jowell article: "This is a supposedly smart attempt to make it appear like the US Nixon scandal of Watergate, which is of course totally meaningless to most readers under the age of 50." Is this really so? If so, we need accurate factual Wikipedia all the more to remind us of the dangers of not keeping politicians of all ages and in all eras under careful scrutiny.--farsee50 14:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the 'gate' issue I have added a link to the useful article and list on use of the suffix.Piersmasterson 10:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Scandal or potential scandal?

User:Dbiv is determined that Jowellgate does not yet have the status of Scandal. The point he may have missed, or refuses to accept, is that it is already established as a scandal, regardless of the eventual, final outcome. In his latest edits "It has the potential to be a British political scandal, and the connection of large sums of money to politics is reminiscent of incidences of sleaze", the words potential and reminiscent are a clear attempt to dumb-down the status of the affair. They could be construed as weasel WP:Weasel words. Dbiv is a Labour politician and I have challenged his neutrality on his talk page.

I think there is a clear diference between scandal and potential scandal. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as a potential scandal. How much currency does an event described as a scandal need to have before it is classed as a WP scandal? The WP defintion might help: scandal - A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both.

In highlighting some key words, does this help to clearly define Jowellgate as a scandal?--leaky_caldron 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As serious such as The Telegraph and The Times are describing the incident as a scandal [1] [2], then I'm convinced it's a scandal. I realise Wikipedia needs to keep a fairly neutral POV, but describing this as a potential scandal is very misleading. Remember, we need to be bold ! --Oscarthecat 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Update - I suggest reverting User:Dbiv's edit, on the grounds that he's a colleague of Tessa (he's a labour politician, see his Talk page) : this may be affecting his neutral POV. If we can all discuss the matter here, in the meantime, any edits we agree upon can be incorporated into a revised version of the article. --Oscarthecat 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Only just noticed this discussion, now that I have completed a bottom-up copyedit of this article. It was a mess of unsorted POV allegations which would certainly not help anyone who did not already know about the issue. It is now an article of the sort one might find in an encyclopaedia. Readers may care to note that despite Leaky Caldron's claim, I have included a scandal reference in the lead.

As far as Oscarthecat goes, this is quite unacceptable. You haven't identified any POV in my edit, but instead you complain that I can't be neutral because I happen to be a member of the Labour Party in real life. That claim breaks one of the cardinal principles of Wikipedia - which is that evidence an editor has a POV outside Wikipedia is never evidence that that editor's edits on Wikipedia are POV. David | Talk 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

nice attempt at obfuscation but you've done no such thing. You've called it a potential scandal - despite our discussions elsewhere. Potential is quite a different thing, as you very well know.--leaky_caldron 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If it's a potential scandal then it doesn't belong in the scandal category. Out of interest, what criteria would it take for this story to become an actual scandal? --Oscarthecat 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've now changed it. David | Talk 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

David in his talk page entry at 22:28, 25 March 2006 Dbiv (→Cash for Peerages/Jowellgate - yes) confirms he will seek to modify articles to which he takes personal political exception--leaky_caldron 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I consider that a personal attack. David | Talk 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's on the record. Refer to an arbitrator--leaky_caldron 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on 'flow of funds'

This paragraph is not on the flow of funds. It starts by saying that no-one has explained the flow of funds, and then launches into a completely speculative and POV list of entirely predictable newspaper reaction. It adds nothing. The only possibly salvageable part is the first sentence. David | Talk 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

description of sleaze

In the heading there is a dispute as to whether the following:

The word 'sleaze' has come into use to refer to inherent corruption in large sums of money being in the world of politics and politicians, and the case of Tessa Jowell has been cited as an example.

is preferable to the simpler The connection between large sums of money and politics & politicians has become synonymous with sleaze.

I think the first is clumsy and not strictly grammatically accurate.

Is it possible to canvas opinion so as to avoid reversions or a suggested alternative?leaky_caldron 11:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A 'synonym' is where the same concept is described by two different words or phrases. This is not the case here. You don't identify the grammatical problems you see with the other wording. David | Talk 13:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

check this out and explain why I'm wrong [3]leaky_caldron 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What concept are you saying is synonymous with sleaze? Politics itself, or political donations, or any large amount of money near a politician? David | Talk 14:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A very good question!! Personally all three (regardless of which party)!! In this context however the large amount of money near a politician (in Cash for Peerages it would be donations).leaky_caldron 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the wikipedia article for sleaze, it's not merely synonymous with with money/politics/politicians. This use of sleaze in this article needs to be consistent with the sleaze wikipedia article. --Oscarthecat 19:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a poor comparison to take. Sleaze redirects to Political corruption, but that has a cleanup tag on it. I suspect you mean Political Sleaze (UK Politics) which is where the Tessa Jowell financial allegations links, although that is somewhat behind the times as it starts off by implying the term only relates to the Conservatives. Wikipedia does not have to be consistent, incidentally. David | Talk 08:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have to be consistent, incidentally. - of course, but having complete contradictory articles would not make for a very encyclopaedic source. --Oscarthecat 08:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with Leaky caldron's latest wording for the sentence. David | Talk 10:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

good news. On a diferent subject, although the {neutrality} flag was applied at the same time, is there any remaining issue with the remainder of the article that prevents the removal of the flag now? I'm content with the substantive article. How aboutOscarthecat  ?leaky_caldron 10:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No objection. David | Talk 10:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No objection here either. --Oscarthecat 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Still married!

I'm sorry, I'm fully aware of the Wikipedia rules on 'citations' etc. But everybody who's paying attention and following British politics knows that Tessa Jowell is lying when she says she has split from her husband. She's doing this so that the Berlusconi scandal cannot be connected to the British government through her. She's still wearing the damn ring on her finger! --81.105.251.160 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Severe BLP cull

I just cut a pile of stuff from this article, including a huge section that was completely uncited. Every allegation and quote needs a cite. I've tagged a pile that definitely needs an inline cite. The old material is still in the history if people can find cites for it. This needs serious going over - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Culled yet more garbage sourcing and blatant WP:COATRACKing of unrelated incidents. This is a news story that happened, but it needs vastly better citing than the old version - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Title

This isn't actually allegations about Tessa Jowell but about David Mills. Should be there? Or Jowellgate? Or better place? - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No objections, so moving - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Mills financial allegations. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113072727/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C200-2058985%2C00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C200-2058985%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050827095936/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aTiXT_FbBkuI&refer=uk

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) 07:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)