Wikipedia

Talk:John Ashton (public health director)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page


Initial comment

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would appreciate any constructive comments and help JRPG (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Suspension over twitter

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Thank you user:FergusM1970, you have persuaded me to subscribe to the Times & perhaps I should have done it sooner! I appreciate you may have more information about who used what obscenities first to whom etc. etc. but twitter is not a reliable source, the Times article says “Professor Ashton was called a “c***”, “asshole” and “jizzweasel” over the weekend for supporting the WHO” and the FPH note “mitigating circumstances.” The e-cigarette issue is important –you removed my properly cited quote saying he didn’t support a ban -but details of the row aren’t, they’re just a disgrace to all concerned. I intend to add a few lines saying that Ashton was provoked & was subsequently suspended. This is wp:blp so inadequately cited defamatory material must be removed or reported. Please discuss on talk page before reverting.

Regards JRPG (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The fact is he wasn't provoked, apart from when former ASH director Clive Bates told him he sounded like a bloke in a bar. What actually happened was that he started searching for Twitter accounts whose owners had posted about e-cigs, and sending abusive replies. Some of the messages he replied to had been posted as far back as March. On being challenged - politely; I have screenshots - he started throwing out insults. He didn't read any of the insults that were used about him the next day (the timing was a detail that The Times omitted) because he'd blocked all the people who used them several hours earlier, in most cases before having any interactions with them. The Times article is an RS for what Martin McKee thinks, but not for what actually happened (which is all recorded on Twitter).--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate that Twitter isn't an RS, but this conversation is the one in which those insults (and many more) were suggested in the context of an open letter to Ashton which was being discussed, although of course Ashton never read those tweets because everyone involved had been blocked. It's also very obvious that the insults were nothing to do with his support of the WHO and everything to do with his online behavior (for which he has some previous...). Check the date. Then check the date of Ashon's abusive tweets. They were the previous day. The claim that he "retaliated" comes solely from Martin McKee.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Up to this morning I thought we were very close to agreement. There are two choices and only two choices which meet WP:BLP
  • Agree informally the Times article is inaccurate -not use it but rely on the FPH document. My preference though I may contact Wikipedia to explain the Times article is probably in error.
  • Accept both sources as accurate and provide a true summary of both.
The twitter image should be deleted in either event. What you have added goes far beyond what is needed for educational purposes -see wp:undue, you are continuing a puerile off-wiki argument and have a clear wp:COI, you should not be editing this section in your present mood. If you add any unsourced or twitter sourced defamatory “information” I will request help from an administrator without further warning.
I will change the article shortly. JRPG (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree; the Times article is inaccurate. Only two people were interviewed, Martin McKee and Lorien Jollye. The bulk of the article was about McKee's views on the incident, which were not exactly objective. However as the FPH statement made clear Ashton's behavior was completely unacceptable; he searched for and insulted people without any provocation, then jumped on comments that were made about him the next day to justify his behavior. The article should not be rewritten to whitewash this as a harassed man responding to abuse, because as the timestamps on all the tweets make clear that isn't what happened.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
p.s. For information to be defamatory it is necessary for it to be untrue.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Though I would accept Twitter to not be a reliable source of information about an individual where it contains second hand details of an individual or event, it is a reliable source if the subject at hand is of a Twitter exchange. If the Twitter exchange proves that any later report was inaccurate, then this should be considered evidence. John Ashton deleted his own original tweets the following morning, but witnesses to the events of the evening had saved all the exchanges. Ashton's views and contribution to earlier radio debates had been criticised, but he had not received any abuse. Only after he used the terms "c**t" and "onanisits" and made a number of related slurs aginst ecig users did one individual call him a "jizzweazel". He also located at least 2 unrelated tweets in which people had made innocent reference to their use of ecigs, the most recent being 3 weeks old, and made derogatory comments about them being "addicts". All of these events are evidenced through screenshots of the original exchange, which in this case, would be the most reliable source of events. The Times article, in the absence of the offensive Tweets, inaccurately attributed the antagonism and most offensive comments to ecig users, rather Ashton himself.Jim bexley speed (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Jim, I was willing to concede the Times was wrong -because abusive twitter arguments are trivia -meriting at most one line which I can get from the FPH. I don't need the Times. Neither you nor Fergus should be editing this article if you personally involved. Are you seriously expecting me to believe what the Times & FPH deny -that it was an unprovoked attack? I've better things to do with my life than discuss other people's gutter level twitter arguments. You must not deliberately misquote the Times to support your own views even if you genuinely think it is wrong. Given most people don't have a subscription that could be perceived as deception.
JRPG (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The evidence that it was an unprovoked attack is easily available. I don't even know why this would surprise you; Ashton has launched unprovoked attacks on people through Twitter before. Anyway, what's your personal involvement? I note that you created the article on Ashton, and you seem to be under the impression that you get to decide what's important enough to be included in it. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

POV Tag

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The Twitter incident section seems to be a whitewash of what happened. You have very high quality sources describing the incident, and you owe it to our readers to have a proper presentation of this controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

In addition to The Times, there are also these sources:

  • The Mail: A prominent Government health adviser has been forced to stand aside for sending abusive messages on Twitter. [1]
  • LGC The president of the UK Faculty of Public Health, John Ashton, has taken a “voluntary leave of absence” following a recent heated Twitter exchange with a supporter of e-cigarettes. [2]
  • Health Service Journal The Times reports that public health chiefs have accused e-cigarette users of a campaign of online abuse. John Ashton, president of the Faculty of Public, is facing an official complaint after he retaliated and used explicit language on Twitter. [3]

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I had intended to use User talk:HenryJoy's last contribution but the FPH statement changed & following my erroneous response to Fergus's objections the section was far blander than I intended. The Mail is not a wp:rs in the UK but the LCJ looks good. Update shortly, thanks. JRPG (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The Mail may not be considered a top notch source in the UK, but it meets the WP:RS threshold. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
******* Wikipedia crashed/unavailable! Thanks for the changes. Academic now..but the Mail usually gets removed if unsupported. WP:Suggested_sources#Current_news one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun." JRPG (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
That is for current news, as they seem to be a bit over the top in their reporting, and there are always other sources for main news. Not in this case, I believe. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Ashton (public health director). 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) 02:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Ashton_(public_health_director)&oldid=1199080743"