| Revision as of 09:13, 5 October 2006 editTwobells (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,576 editsm →TwoBells← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:15, 5 October 2006 edit undoFys (talk | contribs)14,706 edits split up; don't agree with TwobellsNext edit → | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
| ] 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | ] 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==October 2006== | |||
| That's it, I am removing the entire 'local comment' section, it's a real shame as much of the piece was well-written but we cannot have politicking on a factual website, as for that awful personal attack and spurious 'link's' suggesting Westminster collusion again i state it has no place on Misplaced Pages, all this seems to do is allow this Ireland character more steam and undue attention, just notice the glee with which he links any mention of his behaviour to this site. | That's it, I am removing the entire 'local comment' section, it's a real shame as much of the piece was well-written but we cannot have politicking on a factual website, as for that awful personal attack and spurious 'link's' suggesting Westminster collusion again i state it has no place on Misplaced Pages, all this seems to do is allow this Ireland character more steam and undue attention, just notice the glee with which he links any mention of his behaviour to this site. | ||
| I have to agree with Hengis, this is getting out of hand, very personal and must stop now. | I have to agree with Hengis, this is getting out of hand, very personal and must stop now. | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| :I'm sorry but I don't entirely agree with that. The weblog is notable in connection with Anne Milton: it has got national publicity. As long as it isn't elevated into something more than it is (a disaffected and highly politicised local who has a beef against their MP, not a serious political criticism), then it should stand. And the section you deleted has other references as well. | |||
| PS please sign your talk page posts with the special form "<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>", which will add your signature and the date and time. ] | ] 09:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:15, 5 October 2006
 | Biography: Politics and Government Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Bloggerheads
There seems to be a dispute over whether to include the mention of Tim Ireland and his blog, and the subsidiary question of how to mention his claim of Anne Milton's alleged conflict of interest. Perhaps we can debate it here? In my mind the blog is highly significant and should be mentioned because it is unusual to find a blog specifically targeted against a particular MP. (Probably unlucky for Anne Milton to find herself with the highly active and motivated Tim Ireland as a constituent).
The conflict of interest case is more difficult because it does not seem that any laws or rules have been broken, and the blog is clearly not a reliable source. However, I think that it can be worded in such a way as to be neutral and informative. What do others think? David | Talk 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I certainly doubt that specific allegations are worthy of conclusion except as part of a long and comprehensive article, otherwise they're given undue weight. It may be worth mentioning the blog in passing as Milton has commented on its existence, and if this is done it makes sense to link to it. If it isn't mentioned in the article, the link itself may not meet WP:EL as it doesn't particularly expand or supplement encyclopedic content. I realise I'm fence-sitting... —Whouk (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please excuse my thread-waste (below). The entry has been edited again and the words 'cyber stalker' have been used again. If you don't mind, as I've said my piece, I plan to stay out of this and allow more experienced editors to deal with the matter. - Miltox 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's the outright deletions that get me down
I've been perfectly happy with factual/balanced corrections made by more seasoned editors in that I don't think the entry should be drowned in every allegation made at the Anne Milton weblog. (There are many.)
But recent edits made primarily from inside the Houses of Parliament have involved complete removal of any mention of the weblog. (I apologise for my recent facetiousness regarding this matter, BTW. )
And the fact remains that - as much as this MP would like to deny it - this weblog plays a significant role in her professional life. The role it played during the election was reported on by The Times twice over:
A strange case of espionage and warfare inside the commuter belt
It also needs to be recognised that the listing for another female MP Sarah Teather also has a link to an unofficial weblog. Even Tony Blair has an entry with two links/references to a campaign to impeach him.
I think the weblog is significant, and I think the persistent attempts of parties unknown to wipe any reference to it from this entry is a testament to that significance.
Miltox | 16:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Compromise?
Perhaps a compromise might be reached by which just the bloggerheads link might be included. As I have made clear elsewhere, if denigration of one elected representative is allowed in the manner attempted here, activists are going to "pile in" wrecking their opponents entries everywhere, and how could you then argue that they should not?
Hengis
PS. Sorry, somehow I have altered this page and now cannot re-edit it back. Perhaps I should have spent some time in the sandpit.
Hengis
- This sounds fair, but shouldn't that link be put into context or included in the entry iself? How is the following for a draft?
- During the election campaign, Milton became the subject of a (neutral-but-accurate one-word description) weblog by online activist Tim Ireland. Since its inception, this weblog has been dismissed by the MP as the efforts of "an angry young man"
I would suggest that the compromise of linking just to bloggerheads.com isn't as factually useful, as linking to the /anne_milton folder within it. A suggestion to Tim Ireland is perhaps to actually take out a specific Anne Milton domain name which would make it easier for the purposes of Misplaced Pages and search engines. For example, www.annemiltonblog.com . Thank you.
I restored the bit about the allegation on Tim Ireland's blog that this Misplaced Pages entry has been edited from within the parliament. I believe it to be significant enough enough to warrant mention in this encyclopaedia. If Milton had acknowledged Ireland, be he as angry as he may be, it means that he deserves such acknowledgement; and if it is true that this entry was edited through a parliamentary IP address, then it implies something about Milton or her colleagues. Cockneyite 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted Tim Ireland's unsubstantiated and malevolent link, we can't have this sort of thing in Misplaced Pages, it reduces the resource to a partisan platform and where are we then? I am astonished that the editors even considered the linkage. Regarding Cockneyite's implications, it's all supposition and comment not provable fact. Should Misplaced Pages become someone's weapon for their 'anger' at a third party and vicious personal attacks? No, I think not. Oh, and before there is yet another conspiracy theory about the edit, i am not connected to Westminster, the Guildford Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or a supporter of Sue Doughty. twobells 19:36 28 August 2006
Am in agreement with twobells, which is why I have been forced to remove the text from the wikipedia entry. Having consulted the wikipedia code, this is the only conclusion that can be made. The edits should remain offline until it has been fully discussed here. I will defer to anyone who has anything further to add. anon
Tim Ireland
What is this "wikipedia code"? Is it a reference to the biographies of living persons thing which says that negative material should be removed if unsourced? If so then it doesn't apply because this is well-sourced. It is a fact that Ireland set up the blog, that he doesn't like Anne Milton, and that Milton refuses to discuss it (the Times link is a good 'un). The link is relevant. There's no quote from the blog included in the section anyway - it just says it exists and allows people to have a look at it.
What we can't have is censorship of stuff that's critical of Anne Milton just because her supporters don't like it. I bet we could all remove stuff like that from articles about our favourite people and say that it should remain off until discussed.
TwoBells
Please, to make the argument that your allegations are 'well-sourced' is to similarly suggest that the BBC are right-wing, it has no reflection in reality. I did however wonder how long it would be before someone cried censorship because their hate-fueled rants were considered irrelevant to the article. Also, you constantly suggest that its Miltons supporters that edit out your diatribe, please do not be surprised that there are some people who consider personal attacks on a factual website abhorrant believe it or not. 5th October 2006 10:12 GMT.
Recent Developments
Someone recently reverted my balancing edits, claiming 'reverted after 'fair' revision that was obviously skewed toward the personal'. The whole Tim Ireland blog on Anne Milton is of a personal nature. I did no more than highlight bothsides of the argument. This seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me (and I am sure many other wikieditors.) The Ireland links have been maintained while providing balance. anon
- get over yourself. you attempted to inject your own opinion under the guise of balance. the milton blog is only 'personal' when it borders on satire, while you quoted an obviously satirical bio out of context because you're taking this far too personally
Sorry, 'fraid I don't agree. You have just removed all my edits including the good work that Anne Milton has done in the constituency. Did that need to be removed for example? You seem to be the only one attempting to inject your opinion. I have merely tried to reflect both sides of the dispute. If a local critical comment is to be added, then surely a local praiseworthy section should also be added. It is also worth adding in a little bit of Ireland history which gives readers a fairer idea of the man behind the blog so to speak. anon
- I have problems with the paragraph about Tim Ireland.
- "this is not an uncommon tactic", got any sources? And just seems to be a justification of the tactic.
- The use of guns 'is not an uncommon tactic' to kill people, that doesn't make the use of guns justified.
- "On his own website, Ireland describes himself as having "a bitterness that pollutes the core of his being to this very day." " Is this relevant?
- "not an ordinary voter or member of the public either having described himself as "not a big Tory fan"" I'm 'not a big tory fan' either, I'm still a member of the public. Naming Tim Ireland as the blog author should be sufficient, it is clear on his page that he is an activist. As the link supporting this is on someone else's blog, can you be sure Tim Ireland said that?
- "not an active member of any political party" The 'active' insinuates he is a member of a party and just doesn't make it known. He claims not to be a member of any party, I think that can be taken at face value. (Put "claims not to be a member" if you like).
- "shows bias toward the Liberal Democrat end of the political spectrum in his highly personal viral campaigns."
- This is just plain opinion and I'm going to remove it. You can't make that kind of claim without substantiating it.
- Sam Hayes 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also added link to Tim's blog, if theres a link to a positive website (guildford conservatives) then there should be a link to a negative site. Sam Hayes 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with the edits Sam Hayes has made thus far. With regard to "a bitterness..." quote about Ireland, it is relevant in the sense that it backs up the Milton quote of an "angry young man."
With regard to Sam's comment about not being a tory fan - the whole Anne Milton Tim Ireland run weblog is complaining that Anne Milton's literature uses people who are politically biased, as if they are not. Therefore, if it is relevant that Anne Milton uses Tory activists in her campaign literature (that could be potentially seen as ordinary members of the public) then it is relevant that Ireland is not an entirely unbiased normal member of the public either. Ireland's internet dealings are extensive, so I am sure we could probably find a better quote than this - but that one is sufficiant for now.
The 'not an active member of any political party' edit that Sam has made seems perfectly fair.
Ireland's whole political stance is to the left of Labour's and shares much in common with that of the Lib Dems. Just have a look at his bloggerheads weblog and you will see.
The whole point about this argument/wikipedia entry is this: Tim Ireland has been editing and using this page as a political means to attack Anne Milton. On wikipedia, this is unacceptable. He has attempted to revert numerous edits without any justification because he has now discovered he does not like being on the other end of the boot when people attempt to balance his one sided comments. anon
However, I do not agree that Tim Ireland's blog needs a specific mention in the links. It is linked only as a source to critical comments not for any other reason. The Guilford association website is an official website associated with Anne Milton. anon
The blog is the subject of an entire section, I think that is a pretty good reason to have a link to it. The fact that Tim's opinions match some of Lib Dem's policies isn't evidence that he is biased towards them. Being biased against Anne Milton and Labour(TB mainly) is very different to being biased for the Lib Dem's. I think the version as it is makes clear that Tim doesn't like Labour or the Tory's, not that I think that should make a great deal of difference. If we've got consensus on the current version then it should be left for the time being, there has been too much messing around on what is a very minor article about a very minor tory MP. Sam Hayes 18:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how this entry can stay as it is. It's been structured to read as "Anne Milton is a really really nice person and a really really good MP, so please ignore the weblog that almost everybody else ignores because the person who writes it is mentally unbalanced"
- But, considering recent activities by supporters of Anne Milton, we can be grateful that they didn't add "and quite possibly a child molester"
- This whole fuss began with the continued removal of the link to the Anne Milton weblog by a person using the British Parliamentary IP range (and this most recent editor, upon getting away with his latest edit, added the final flourish of the removal of the link to the Anne Milton weblog)
- All of the significant edits, apart from vandalism that the Anne Milton weblog made very clear was unacceptable, have revolved around the removal of this link.
- The new content (that seeks to boost Anne Milton's reputation and undermine that of the author of the weblog - why is this in a Misplaced Pages entry? at all?) offers no citation beyond that for a single quote taken out of context.
- I'm reverting this to the last version by Whouk, and would suggest that further discussion take place before any further edits are made.
Sorry, Tim (because I believe it is you) but . You have continued to removed an attempt to balance the evidence that Anne Milton has been praised rather than solely criticised by your weblog. The whole fuss began with Tim Ireland/whoever adding in the link. The links to his blog as sources are fair enough. They can stay. However, a separate link at the bottom of the page is not applicable since there is no justification for having that link there since it has already appeared as a source. If you can find a quote for Tim Ireland saying the opposite to 'an angry young man' please feel free to add in...
- "The whole fuss began with Tim Ireland/whoever adding in the link."
- It stayed there until June 22, 2006 when someone from Anne Milton's office became aware of the Misplaced Pages entry when the 'irrelevant' blog pointed out that it had been vandalised
- How is the blog irrelevant when Milton's own staff use it as a source of information? Also, this 'biased' weblog also objected to this and other vandalism
- After that, there were repeated attempts to remove the link from Parliament and then a range of differing IP addresses from 'different' people with exactly the same aim - to put the link into 'context' or remove it entirely
- This whole fuss began - and continues - because someone from Anne Milton's office objects to the link and seeks to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground.
Going to admit that it's you Tim?
This has become utterly ridiculous. Pro Sue Doughty elements want comments and a link denigrating Milton in, and (unsurprisingly) Milton supporters want it out. All that is happening here is politicking, pure and simple. I say this to those who believe they are assisting Sue Doughty in her cause to recover the Guildford constituency. What are you going to do if someone sets up a critical blog about her and then links her Misplaced Pages entry to it?
Milton is, to quote an anti-Miltonite, "a very minor tory (sic) MP". True. So why is it necessary to have any comments or links that claim she is either good or bad? She doesn't warrant anything other than a brief article as to who she is and no more.
Hengis 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Pro Sue Doughty elements want comments and a link denigrating Milton in" - Be careful. This is an unsubstantiated allegation by the Milton supporters. All of this fuss is about Milton supporters wanting the link out. It's relevant and it belongs.
Wow, am I a anti-Miltonite now? Hengis, I agree completely, get rid of the local comment section altogether, lock the page and let people make up their own minds, Tim's blog is the no.1 search result in google for Anne Milton so its not as if criticism is hard to come by. Sam Hayes 23:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous Sue Doughty supporter, if you care to check the edits, you will see that I have not sought to delete either the Ireland link or the negative comments about Milton.
It is a question of "sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander". You can't insist on negative comments/links being included and then argue on spurious grounds that favourable comment is precluded, without looking completely ridiculous.
I hope you are not trying to suggest that you are a totally dispassionate member of the internet community, because that just does not wash. You have defended the anti-Milton edits too vociferously.
Be careful? What of? Fair comment is not actionable.
If you don't mind, I'll sign off now - I have a life.
Hengis 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
October 2006
That's it, I am removing the entire 'local comment' section, it's a real shame as much of the piece was well-written but we cannot have politicking on a factual website, as for that awful personal attack and spurious 'link's' suggesting Westminster collusion again i state it has no place on Misplaced Pages, all this seems to do is allow this Ireland character more steam and undue attention, just notice the glee with which he links any mention of his behaviour to this site. I have to agree with Hengis, this is getting out of hand, very personal and must stop now.
- I'm sorry but I don't entirely agree with that. The weblog is notable in connection with Anne Milton: it has got national publicity. As long as it isn't elevated into something more than it is (a disaffected and highly politicised local who has a beef against their MP, not a serious political criticism), then it should stand. And the section you deleted has other references as well.
PS please sign your talk page posts with the special form "~~~~", which will add your signature and the date and time. David | Talk 09:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories: