| 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Corrupt?
editAn IP editor has been repeatedly inserting the word "corrupt" into the opening sentence of this article. The artcile indicates that a parliamentary investigation found that the extent of the payments to his son was excessive, and recommended sanctions. That of itself does not provide sufficient grounds for Wikipedia to declare him to be corrupt. There is no mention of a formal allegation that Conway deliberately abused his position, rather than making an error of judgement. A term such as "corrupt" should only be used here if it is backed up - verbatim - in a credible source, which must be cited. Without supporting evidence, not only does it violate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons but also Wikipedia:original_research and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Please read these policies and if you still think it right and necessary to descibe Conway as corrupt please add citations which substantiate the description. Thanks - Timberframe (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Political scandals in the United Kingdom
editUser:Ohconfucius removed this category tag, with the edit summary the subject may have been involved in a scandal, but was not himself a scandal. I can't fault the logic of the argument on purely linguistic grounds, but after looking at what the category contains I think this is too literal an interpretation of the category's scope. The category contains many articles which relate to specific people who have been at the centre of scandals; its associated main article, Political scandals in the United Kingdom, has an entry for Conway's paying his sons. It seems perfectly reasonable and consistent, therefore, to categorise the Conway article in this way and so I've re-instated the cat tag. Hope this is an acceptable explanation. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Update
editI have changed tense on statement regarding membership of a Parliamentary committee after re-election in 2005 to reflect fact he is not now (2012) a Member of Parliament itself.Cloptonson (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)