Talk:Rory Stewart

Open primary

I removed "getting more than fifty per cent of the vote in the final round" because this always happens in transferable elections. Does anyone know what the voting system was? More detail? 141.228.106.151 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Claims of MI6 membership

Recent deletions relating to the claims of Craig Murray appear to confuse the nature of the material deleted. It did not assert that Mr Stewart was an M16 officer. Clearly, if it had, the source provided would not have been sufficient to support the claim. In fact, the deleted material asserted that Craig Murray has claimed on several occasions that Mr Stewart was an M16 officer. This assertion is factual – and demonstrably and incontestably true. A link was provided in the initial edit, but more can be found here:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/09/iain_dales_brac.html http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/another_old_eto.html

Credibility of Murray The question then becomes is the material relevant and credible? As a high profile former diplomat whose public recognition relies on his achievements, it’s clearly relevant. As to credibility of Mr Murray, he was a senior FCO employee for over 20 years, including time in Uzbekistan as the Ambassador, a key partner in the War on Terror. Clearly then he would have knowledge of the security services and, indeed, if high profile individuals were working for the FCO.

The explanation for the deletion suggested that Murray was, in some way, discredited by his sacking. In fact, Murray has always claimed (along with many mainstream media outlets) that he was sacked for exposing British reliance on secret intelligence obtained through torture. A claim that has been subsequently vindicated.

The ostensible reasons given for his sacking – a series of administrative misdemeanours – were all dismissed by the FCO’s own investigators with the exception of one: informing his staff that he was the subject of a disciplinary inquiry. The FCO also gave Murray a substantial financial settlement on his departure. All of this is public domain and so the claim he is somehow inherently untrustworthy bears no weight.

Political rivals? As to his political allegiances and a supposed conflict of interest, Stewart is a PPC, Murray is simply a member of the Liberal Democrats – not an office holder nor a candidate in any forthcoming election. They are not in any meaningful sense political rivals. In any case, Stewart is PPC for Penrith. This is a safe Tory seat – it hasn’t changed hands in over 60 years – so the idea that this is a political intrigue seems unlikely.

Finally, the claims by Murray date from before even Stewart had been selected as a PPC. Indeed, by his own admission Murray he did not rejoin the Liberal Democrats (he left in 2005) until March 2010 – six months after the claims cited.

In summary, I think the deleted material appears to meet the requirements of Wikipedia’s biographies of living people.

It is not the job of Wikipedia to protect national security or the reputation of public figures. And, while such material may be embarrassing or inconvenient to Mr Stewart, that does not mean that it is has no place on Wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.118.69 (talk • contribs)

(Added section header and unsigned note) --h2g2bob (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the statement on the page ("Former British diplomat turned political campaigner Craig Murray has claimed on several occasions that Stewart did not work for the Foreign Office and was, in fact, an agent for the Secret Intelligence Service also known as MI6.") is supported by the reference. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear about use of a personal blog as a source of information. Even if you cite the source, it's still only a rumour. Since the source is a blog and the claims in it unsubstantiated, should the sentence in the article be revised to indicate that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.194.204 (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In the blog, Murray claims to have direct, firsthand knowledge of Stewart's membership (“Let me be plain. Rory Stewart was an officer for Torturers'R'Us (formerly trading as MI6). Now I know many MI6 officers personally and I know the identities of hundreds of them.” http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/another_old_eto.html) - so I don't know that 'rumour' is the correct word for the nature of the claim.

Of course, generally speaking, it will always be difficult to have unassailable evidence of M16 membership – it’s conceivable that even a claim or a denial of membership by the individual concerned wouldn’t provide clear proof. However, as above, the statement under debate is factual and is from a source sufficiently credible to make it worthy of inclusion. As per line one of Verifiability: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.245.98 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a "denial of membership" by the subject of the article, in the 8 Nov 2010 Telegraph here. I'm not sure how relevant his supposed MI6 involvement is for inclusion - would that go up or down relative to his politic career :p ?

There is a (dismissive) Spectator blog here about Murray's blog but being a blog, even a (supposedly) half decent one, when not by the subject of the article, is not on at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.187.246 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 4 July 2011

Blogs are not verifiable sources. Period. The Times is, and at a stretch so is The Sun, but in this case, and with such a massively dangerous and potentially life-ending piece of information, I'm afraid that WP:BLP dictates that we can only accept 100% perfect sources. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; am glad that the contributor has been blocked from making further unsubstantiated claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeglib (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and twine

Many people, particularly non constituents will have heard of Stewart for the first time as a result of covereage by the BBC, BBC again, Telegraph, Guardian editorial.
It was also on the Radio 4 program Today very early this morning and I haven't included the tabloids. Irrespective of your feelings or mine, these reporters don't regard it as trivial, the fact that Steward has been interviewed suggests he doesn't think it trivial either. When people will look to Wikipedia to find more information about him, they should find a short description of what he said PLUS a fair summary of his answer. Omission of the latter is usually the cause of biased BLPs, usually written by political opponents, which seem to plague Wikipedia. Having read both points, the reader has the answer to original question and is entitled to form his own opinion, which may well be that it's trivia. On the basis of WP:Blp#Criticism_and_praise, please leave it in.
Regards JRPG (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing this edit which I reverted.

An important point is that Stewart has actually had an interesting life and done interesting things, including writing a couple of good books. So, this is not like many of the zero-content puffery articles where the only material is various press releases and tabloid stories. Are you confident that the current fuss about an offhand comment warrants encyclopedic attention? Per WP:NOTNEWS, we are not at all concerned if a current news event is not reported here. The standard procedure is to wait three months: if people are still talking about the twine comment, then we could say it has some enduring encyclopedic quality. But right now, it is just amusement at the misfortunes of the moment. I looked at your four links above: the first three are very light-weight comments, and while the fourth is labeled an "editorial", it is also pretty light weight with a tone that is obviously joining in the fun. Is there a serious article with an analysis of how this incident may affect Stewart's election prospects? Obviously, the effect is bad, but has anyone bothered to write about it in a serious manner, with some opinion on how it factors in with other circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree about the excellent contribution RS has made -and can make to the HOC. Also accept the incident is blown out of proportion, as were many expenses items but that is my POV.

For now, this needs to be in there to allow the reader, not us, to judge its significance or otherwise.

Appearing to criticise your constituency is always notable but the sting is reduced as his viewpoint is given. This section can be removed or reduced to a single line + references when there is more political content.

Regards JRPG (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the encyclopedia, we are not so concerned with day-to-day political issues, and I personally am not interested in whether Stewart contributes to the HOC or not. My point is that his life has sufficient material for an encyclopedic article, and this week's news regarding a silly comment is probably undue. Would you consider coming back after, say, August 4 and seeing if you can find a current story on the issue. If so, you might argue that a mention is warranted. If not, my point would be confirmed, and the issue does not belong here. Certainly, if there were even a single reliable source with a serious article on this incident claiming it has long-term significance, then a very good case for inclusion of the issue could be made. That's what WP:NOTNEWS means: Deepwater Horizon explosion is updated frequently because it is significant, but we generally do not report events with no overall importance. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Very few backbenchers are in the news for more than a few days. This is now a short item explaining why the significant attention from serious newspapers was no big deal. If you still feel it should be removed, I'll ask the opinion of BrownHairedGirl. I strongly feel it should stay.

regards JRPG (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

'Is due' or 'has'

Autochthony asks: - "Stewart left his position at Harvard in March 2010 (maintaining, however, an advisory position there), and is due to step down as Executive Chairman of the Turquoise Mountain Trust in May 2010.[9]" 20101030 1335z 81.155.133.133 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Climb1975, 9 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} There are two statements which are factually incorrect and misleading. With minor editing they could improve the accuracy of the article without changing the overall tone or direction. Both statements pertain to Stewart's work in Iraq. He was never a Deputy Governor as this was a position occupied by Iraqi nationals. His role, which is made clear in his published work on the subject, was 'Deputy Governorate Co-ordinator'. The key point is that he was there to be the deputy representative of the coalition working to co-ordinate coalition activity in the governorate. To say that he was a deputy governor is a misleading account of his role and authority, and also misrepresents the structure of the coalition presence in Iraq at that time.

Text of passages in question:

1. "Stewart was a deputy governor of a province of occupied Iraq in 2003-2004" and 2. "he was appointed the Coalition Provisional Authority Deputy Governor of Maysan and Senior Advisor in Dhi Qar"

I propose the following re-wording: 1. "Stewart was a senior coalition official in a province of occupied Iraq in 2003-2004" and 2. "he was appointed the Coalition Provisional Authority Deputy Governorate Co-Ordinator in Maysan and Deputy Governorate Co-ordinator/Senior Advisor in Dhi Qar"

For a credible reference on this subject I refer you to Harvard University: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/press-releases/stewart-carr-center

Climb1975 (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous??

This is trivia by another name. Can we merge it into the main article? JRPG (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

MI6 - again

Given the old discussion about MI6 above, I thought I should add another source. Just been looking at some old New Yorker magazines and came across this paragraph, buried in a long profile/interview piece by Ian Parker (issue dated November 15, 2010 and quoted here):

But was he in MI6, at the start of his career, in Indonesia and Montenegro? Someone in London who is in a position to know told me that Stewart certainly was. His mother, when asked, smiled, and said, "I wouldn't begin to know." Stewart muttered that he was not, but he didn't contest the idea with the vigor of his Afghan denial. As a storyteller and a newly minted politician, he must find it frustrating if he is under a legal and moral obligation to mislead. "It's an unfair question," he said crossly, although he later suggested phrases that I might use-such as his career "giving the appearance of" such a path. He added that people should have "the very, very clear understanding that I stopped working in embassies and for the government proper in 2000." From then on, "I was no longer part of the system."

Testbed (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it would be legitimate for the article to report that allegations have been made if the allegations have been referred to in a number of high-profile places such as The New Yorker, The Independent and The Telegraph. As for Craig Murray's blog item, as discussed above, I think that Craig Murray's opinion is reasonably notable and that his blog is a reliable source for his opinion.     ←   ZScarpia   13:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hong Kong people

Is the category "Hong Kong people" meaningful? Stewart was born there only because his father (Brian Stewart, also a diplomat) chanced to be posted there 1972–74, and was posted back to London when Rory was aged 1 or 2! For the time being, I've substituted the more detailed category "Hong Kong people of Scottish descent". Stanning (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rory Stewart. 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/20100215051006/http://www.harcourtbooks.com/PrinceOfTheMarshes/interview.asp to http://www.harcourtbooks.com/PrinceOfTheMarshes/interview.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212031439/http://www.rsgs.org/awardsandmedals/ to http://www.rsgs.org/awardsandmedals/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305070326/http://www.rslit.org/content/fellows to http://www.rslit.org/content/fellows
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nalc.gov.uk/Latest_News/Rory_StewartMPleadsnationalcampaignforparishfinancing.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/penrith-mp-rory-stewart-to-get-married-next-week-1.1007268?referrerPath=

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) 16:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Rory Stewart.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Marches- got a copy?

I borrowed The Marches from the library (a good read but could perhaps have been better shorter!) so don't have it to hand. An editor wants the long-established statement that Broich is Stewart's ancestral home to be sourced, and I know it's talked about at length in the book. Could someone add a reference, from the book or otherwise? Thanks. PamD 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Image

Why is his official Parliamentary portrait not being used here, in line with the precedent set on the vast majority of MPs' pages? 81.98.161.139 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no official policy on this. I personally would prefer to see any subject of a WP:BLP have the right to chose their own photo.

I've previously replaced a photo after an email saying the MP dislikes it and offering an alternative.

Whilst the official photo is often chosen, in a few cases, it may not be be very flattering -and I believe that's the case here. JRPG (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I should think that consistency is more important than some fairly flimsy judgement as to how flattering images are. There is no reason Stewart’s image should be different, in view of practice on other MP’s pages. Docentation (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Rory Stewart MP.jpg is the photo used for Stewart's profile on Parliament and Government. It's less tilted and doesn't have his collar sticking out. It's more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry than the File:Official_portrait_of_Rory_Stewart.jpg. Photographs don't become more useful to us because they were part of the same photoshoot. The blue-background portraits are often the best photos we have access to for MPs, but the white-background photo of Stewart is more appropriate. Ralbegen (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Up-to-date

This article shows what an up-to-date encyclopedia Wikipedia is. Just a few minutes after it was announced on the news that Rory Stewart had been eliminated from the Conservative Leadership contest, the "is a contender" had been changed to "was a contender". Vorbee (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Common name

@TSP and PamD, please allow me to explain. Per WP:LEGALNAME:

It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name.

"Rory" is a very common short form of "Roderick", so it should not be included in quotation marks in the lead. This would also resolve the middle-name-or-family-name? situation we have currently. Lordtobi (✉) 13:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy without it - although with regard to that quote from the Manual of Style, I'm not sure if "Rory" is a common hypocorism for "Roderick" - (most Rorys are not Rodericks, and most Rodericks are not known as Rory; unlike, say 'Tom' for 'Thomas') so I think it could be argued either way. So I'm happy for it not to be there; just if it is there, it should be after "Nugent", not before. TSP (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the policy anyway - I think the text of an article ought to stand alone, providing full information without the title having to provide a key fact such as "He is better known as Rory" - but I accept that the policy allows "Rory" not to be included in the lead. Some Williams are known as Bill, others aren't, and the text of the article should make this clear. Ah well. PamD 15:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Some Richards can be complete Dicks, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reads Like an Autobiography

Reading Rorys Wiki page I couldnt help but feel that it was written like an autobiography. Unfortunately a lot of contributors are identified by their IP. Cliffbartle (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Introductory description of Stewart's status

As far as I can tell, Stewart is no longer a diplomat. I would suggest, therefore, that the first sentence be changed accordingly, to insert the word 'former' immediately before 'diplomat'. Alternatively, in case 'former' could then be ambiguous in scope (perhaps viewed as qualifying the remainder of the items in the list), the reference to his former status as a diplomat could be added to the end of the list, so that the first sentence would, in its material part, read as follow: '...known as Rory Stewart, is a British author, writer, politician and former diplomat.'

Further, I think it questionable whether Stewart is currently a 'politician', but that seems arguable, notwithstanding his withdrawal from the London Mayoral contest. Cupofkai (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting

https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2023/09/rory-stewart-interview-book-views-career makes some specific claims about COI editing on this page. I am not taking any position on whether this belongs in this biography, just saying that at a minimum it may suggest extra scrutiny is wise regarding any material that was inserted or deleted. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I had a look through some of the edits by this user and made a few changes. A bunch of the changes are pedantic things (names of roles, dates), but there are some larger ones

• This edit is talking about Stewart's views on Brexit - so that section might need some reviewing.
• this edit is also quite large.
• a Bunch of the section on travel writing was originally written by this user.

Talpedia 18:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hohum: Hey - unfortunately I still think we need to look into a couple of these big edits before we can remove the the COI stuff. I had a go to review all the edits a couple of weeks ago but ran out of stream - I do think this is doable however. Talpedia 20:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Hohum ^@) 20:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary photo on page

What is the policy of including photos of the subject on their Wikipedia page. I understand that Stewart is no longer an MP, but it's strange to have a photo of him where it looks like he's in a bookshop. Someone mentioned that it's normal practice to use the most recent decent photo, but as an avid listener of the Rest is Politics I've noticed that Alastair Campbell's photo is from 2012. Surely for Stewart a photo from about 5 years ago is good enough? Ellwat (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I would have thought a bookshop was quite appropriate. A chip shop or a lingerie shop maybe not so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it was inappropriate, just a bit strange. I don't know what the hierarchy of editors on this page is, so if you want to keep that bookshop photo I won't stand in your way. IMO I'd rather have the parliamentary portrait. Ellwat (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I can see arguments both ways. I'm just saying a bookshop is perfectly appropriate and therefore not strange (especially if it's the oldest in the country). I must admit I had assumed he was probably doing a book-signing there, not just shopping. But who knows. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

et voila... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no clear polciy guideline. This is the most recent worthwhile discussion that I can find: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_10#Are_more_recent_images_favored_for_biographical_subjects?. Rory Stewart is still very active in politics, and perhaps better known now as an author and academic than when he was an MP. The queues for his recent signings in Hatchards and Waterstones were long, and he was fine with my photographing him to update the image on his WP page. As long as it is of a decent standard, then we should favour the more recent image. Edwardx (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of any solid objection, I will shortly add the newer photo to the infobox. Edwardx (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)