FungasUK
Unreferenced BLPs
edit
Hello FungasUK! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 341 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Ian Dench - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
July 2015
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Sewel, Baron Sewel. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Nthep, I find this slightly heavy handed. The edits don't seem to me to be vandalism, because what FungasUK added to the page has been widely reported today. In the circumstances, a {{cn}} tag might have been more the ticket! Moonraker (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was already cited in the following (now preceding) paragraph in a neutral way. Adding drugs and prostitues (sic) into a list of someone's interests is not writing in a neutral way. To quote from WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Nthep (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, Nthep, are you saying that he shouldn't have resigned? And that the BBC should not be reporting this story because it's too 'tabloid' for them? What piffle. He's a public servant; vandalism or not, his page should be more specific in reflecting the reasons why he's just resigned as deputy speaker, and not airbrush it out as appears to be happening today.FungasUK (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- This warning has nothing to do with Sewel's conduct but how you edited a biography of a living person. Firstly the information you added, when I removed it, was already in the article - in the paragraph immediately after the one you edited where a reliable source was already in place. Secondly you failed to provide a source for your addition. No source that I have seen for this incident say drugs or prostitutes are his interests so your addition of them in a list of interests is conjecture and contrary to WP:BLPREMOVE. And, as there has been no admission by Sewel, as yet, that the allegations are true or a judicial finding of guilt then they must be regarded as nothing more that allegations regardless or your, mine or anyone else's opinion of the news report and it's contents (see WP:WELLKNOWN). As the allegation and his resignation were and still are reported in the article in a neutral, verified way I don't see how this can count as whitewashing at any stage since the story broke and reported in reliable sources. Nthep (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Er, you might want to check your facts. The page I edited had no mention of his extra-curricular interests other than a reference to his resignation, with no indication as to why he'd resigned. Ho hum. Photographs of him snorting cocaine off a prostitute's breasts is a pretty strong 'allegation'. Thanks for the lecture; I'm going to move on from this now.FungasUK (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- This warning has nothing to do with Sewel's conduct but how you edited a biography of a living person. Firstly the information you added, when I removed it, was already in the article - in the paragraph immediately after the one you edited where a reliable source was already in place. Secondly you failed to provide a source for your addition. No source that I have seen for this incident say drugs or prostitutes are his interests so your addition of them in a list of interests is conjecture and contrary to WP:BLPREMOVE. And, as there has been no admission by Sewel, as yet, that the allegations are true or a judicial finding of guilt then they must be regarded as nothing more that allegations regardless or your, mine or anyone else's opinion of the news report and it's contents (see WP:WELLKNOWN). As the allegation and his resignation were and still are reported in the article in a neutral, verified way I don't see how this can count as whitewashing at any stage since the story broke and reported in reliable sources. Nthep (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, Nthep, are you saying that he shouldn't have resigned? And that the BBC should not be reporting this story because it's too 'tabloid' for them? What piffle. He's a public servant; vandalism or not, his page should be more specific in reflecting the reasons why he's just resigned as deputy speaker, and not airbrush it out as appears to be happening today.FungasUK (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was already cited in the following (now preceding) paragraph in a neutral way. Adding drugs and prostitues (sic) into a list of someone's interests is not writing in a neutral way. To quote from WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Nthep (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)