Misplaced Pages

Talk:David Abrahams (Labour party donor)

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Redirect page

Redirect to:

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Naming conventions

The current name David Abrahams (Labour party Donator) seems a bit long - what about David Martin Abrahams? - Trident13 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The current page title seems fine to me, although a redirect from (or to) David Martin Abrahams would be good as well. I would say prefer the current title as it's clear who the article is about from looking at the disamg. page, given the context given by the (...) as is standard. (i.e. I just got to the disamg. page and knew this was the one I wanted, whereas I wouldn't have had if we used the middle name version.) KTC (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer David Martin Abrahams, with David Abrahams (Businessman) perhaps also a good alternative; the current title is a bit news-stroy specific. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Material to add

I'm surprised that no-one's found or added the detailed info on the 1991 case brought by Allied Irish Bank against Mr. Abrahams and his business partner yet.

Channel 4 says "it is not presently known if the money was ever repaid", but if I'm correctly understanding what I've found on Google, it appears that Mr. Abrahams had avoided any obligation to repay the money in the first place. Unless I misunderstand, the reason the case went to the House of Lords was that the phrasing of the loan documents made his business partner liable for the entire debt -- Alan Gold, who from the details of the case, I suspect must be the brother of the Howard Gold already mentioned in the article.

The only mainstream media coverage I've found was in The Independent yesterday, but a little Googling finds an old article on the case here (pdf file); the House of Lords judgement on the appeal (wiht judges including not just Lord Hutton, bu also Derry Irvine) is here.


Alan Gold's subsequent litigation against Howard Gold's law firm is aluded to in various places, as [ here, here and here.

I don't have full confidence in my understanding of these matters, so I leave the details here for someone better-versed than me to write them up as required. --AJN 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. Complicated cases but I read it as the bank won in making Martin's partner Gold liable to pay the entire bank debt, as per the joint and several clause. Gold then sued his and Martin's law firm for negligance in allowing that clause and they paid up plus a lot of costs. In fact I imagine the law fims insurance paid up, so Martin and Gold effectively got away with the money AND the bank got it back. Amazing. Martin's lawyer happened to be Gold's brother not that I'm suggesting anything but if I were the insurance company I would be very annoyed. Anyway I have added a link to the case article. --Dbdb 18:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

New source

This new article from The Guardian may be of interest, as it provides a bit more detail on his background: DWaterson 02:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Undid page redirect to "2007 Labour party donation scandal page"

Undid redirect page to 2007 Labour party donation scandal page. Redirect made with reference to WP:BLP1E which states:

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

Abrahams cannot by an stretch be considered a "low-profile individual" - he was a key figure in a controversy over political donatins and has been the subject of special profiles in the British national media:

Rather than redirect his page, it needs to be expanded.

Colombo Man (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I chanced upon this and through Jayjg's edit summary OTRs and see you can challenge his change. Obviously this guy is quite well known in England. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald or Mark David Chapman shouldn't have an article because he's a private person known for only one incident!! This one has to be taken to arbitration if necessary! Tell me if you need support on it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Carol, given how long you've been editing, I'm rather astonished that you would still think arbitration is the first stop in dispute resolution. In actual fact, it's the last stop. Also, you did manage to link to the OTRS page, but it's not apparent to me that you actually read it. I'll quote from the Dispute Resolution section:

If you disagree with a change made to an article where an OTRS ticket number is used as the only reason, please e-mail the OTRS volunteer that made the change. Please do not undo the change until discussion has concluded.

The material is bolded in the original. Now, in your rush to arbitration based on one edit you disagreed with, did you happen to bother e-mailing the OTRS volunteer who first made this change? Jayjg 04:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no comparison with Lee Harvey Oswald. If you were to interview a hundred people in the street I doubt that a single one would remember this person's name. Donorgate, yes, just about (political scandals being ten a penny in the dying days of any government), but not, I venture to suggest, the man. Note the age of the sources, suggesting a lack of ongoing coverage. I endorse Jayjg's action here. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I wrote "arbitration if necessary" - implicit is after other steps. Starting with email the OTRS. I was going to give Colombo Man a chance to do that before figuring out how to do it myself.
Notability on Misplaced Pages does not depend on the "man in the street," it depends on WP:RS. New.googling David Abrahams today I find these articles which mention him- including ongoing investigation. So another case of censoring an ongoing investigation?? I haven't gone through to see in what detail. Some are NOT about the donorgate scandal:
  • Sir Elton and David donate £20k to Liberal Democrats PinkNews.co.uk, UK - Nov 27, 2008
  • ELECTION ENGINEERING AT THE DDC Tacy, Israel - Dec 8, 2008
  • Peter Hain is cleared over campaign donations Times Online, UK - Dec 5, 2008 plus note about all 293 news articles a few of which probably mention him...
  • Pendennis: The Observer diary The Observer, UK - Nov 29, 2008 (The 1000 Club, which has had names such as Lord Levy, Ross Kemp, Max Mosley and David Abrahams linked to it, is presided over by Lord Sawyer of Darlington. ...)
  • Tories face questions over ‘proxy’ donation Times Online, UK - Nov 15, 2008 {The Labour party is being investigated by police over allegations that David Abrahams, a businessman, hid his identity by donating cash through third ... User:CarolMooreDc 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So, some namechecks, and donorgate, but nothing substantive other than about his political donatons. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the actual wiki article on him? It is far more detailed and well sourced than lesser known people who have longer articles with far less sources. I won't bother to name some of them, but I'm sure you've seen lots of such articles you have not opined need to be deleted. Also - thinking about it right now - I really must question the Neutrality of an OTRS volunteer who also opines that the article is just no good. Shouldn't handling Abraham's threat of law suit email by pointing out what specifically is problematic in the article be sufficient? Or at least NOT agreeing with other grounds for redirecting it? Is this something I should address with OTRS people? Carol who got logged out without noticing. 71.163.215.161 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg WP:OTRS ticket 2008030910010087 extremely questionable

Just put this on User:Jayjg's talk page. First time I've dealt with one of these. At this diff User:Jayjg created a REDIRECT of David Abrahams (Labour party donor) to 2007 Labour party donation scandal noting (per WP:BLP1E and WP:OTRS ticket 2008030910010087 . Take both seriously) I have a big problem with this for a number of reasons:

  • David Abrahams has been the subject of hundreds of articles because of his involvement in 2007 Labour party donation scandal but he also is a wealthy business man with others stories past and future about him. There were at least six stories about him found through NEWS.GOOGLE just today (12/11/08) (and several hundred that may have mentioned him linked below one of them). One is about an ongoing investigation of him which may result in prosecution. So WP:BLP1E hardly applies.
  • What could the OTRS be? He's threatening to sue wikipedia because that's the "only" notable incident in his life?
  • A quick look at the article's history also shows little editing activity, so I doubt libelous vandalism is a problem and if it was, this is not a solution.
  • struck material since J. wasn't OTRS volunteer in question

I will be asking for a review of this OTRS on these grounds and posting this on the David Abrahams (Labour party donor) talk page. I'll also share this OTRS redirect as a dangerous precedent meant to censor information about a notable person on WP:BLP/talk. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I posted this whole thing because I thought Jayjg was the editor who originated WP:OTRS ticket 2008030910010087 and he was just being coy by not admitting it he isn't when he mentioned it on this talk page. Misplaced Pages:OTRS doesn't make it clear where to link ticket numbers and volunteers, so I'm going to ask the Volunteer Coordinator a second time. Unless Jayjg wants to tell me who it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
PS. OTRS volunteers at WP:OTRS talk said it is unusual for a non-volunteer OTRS editor to reference a ticket number so my misunderstanding is not surprising. So if Jayjg could tell us who the volunteer editor is so I can contact him/her, that would be a really big help and I might not have to bring it to Admin Noticeboard just to get that info. Though may that's necessary to discuss the redirect. It all gets very confusing!! But one learns by making ones way through the confusion... CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you ask directly User:JzG who protected the page. He probably knows about the ticket. -- lucasbfr 16:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I do indeed. There were a couple of major issues, one of which was the accuracy of some material repeated in several papers but disputed by Abrahams (and he was, we are told, suing the papers on that basis). The other is the usual WP:BLP1E problem of teasing a biography out of a series of news stories in papers with an evident political agenda. There are two names on the OTRS ticket, mine and Cary's. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: My name is not on the ticket. I forwarded a piece of mail received through the office to OTRS, and have not actually dealt with the matter, so I cannot speak to it. Bastique 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, mate, I see that you are absolutely right on that. My bad. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Having said that, I want to stress that I have full faith in JzG's judgment about the matter. Bastique 19:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to Volunteer OTRS editors

OK. So who is Cary so I can also make sure he/she sees the concerns? For the audience here, here are the concerns I expressed at WP:OTRS talk:

Right now there is a headed debate at on ongoing legal cases as a reason for deleting articles, and the Mike Godwin as the Foundation's attorney (according to recent BLP:talk) to decide about such "censorship." In this case a well known property developer may be facing prosecution for his illegal contributions, so this is a case covered under that guidance. If it is merely that he doesn't like publicity, as the article itself says, as does one of the first articles that came up on a search, should that be the standard by which we delete or redirect articles? That's why I brought it to WP:BLP/talk.
On WP:BLP/talk I wrote: Third, I think this is a concern for this article's talk page because it looked to me like a pattern, one supported by a number of editors. Jayjg did use deletion to get rid of Benjamin_M._Emanuel twice, over objections of others, bringing a lot of negative attention from various bloggers for wikipedia deleting someone who had had an article for a while, right after his son Rahm Emanuel becomes Obama's chief of staff AND Benjamin get's worldwide media attention for a smear against Arabs which his son had to apologize for. Generally speaking, I realize some individuals may not want the bad deeds of their political/religious/ethnic/nationalist compatriots publicized on wikipedia, but redirecting or deleting such articles alleging they only are notable on one account (even if there are indeed a number of other less notable things WP:RS have reported on them doing) is the essence of WP:COI and WP:POV which we are supposed to contest as good editors.

I have to assume Abrahams complained to and even threatened to sue wikipedia since OTRS involves confidential emails. Here's latest article before redirection. If the issue is one or two of the many sources in the article he is currently suing, then the information under litigation can be identified as such or replaced by information from publications not being sued. That may be harder work than just redirecting the whole article, but that is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do if they are not to be censored.

The argument "WP:BLP1E problem of teasing a biography" out of publications with a political agenda doesnt hold water, considering how much WP:RS info from different sources there is on him on so many issues. Or maybe this redirection will start getting as much publicity as the Benjamin Emanuel deletion, since some Brits like writing about him? Thereby undermining wikipedia's credibility. User:CarolMooreDC (didn't realize logged out) 71.163.215.161 (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS has no control on editorial content. I note though that you should take into account that 2 independent senior editors raised concerns about the notability of the subject by itself, per WP:BLP1E. Personally I have no opinion, this is borderline (I am not aware at all of that story, as a foreigner). -- lucasbfr 19:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
What Lucas said. OTRS is a channel of communication, nothing more. The OTRS ticket is credibly identified as coming from the article subject and his representatives, identifying concerns. The rule is, OTRS volunteers read the messages and then form their own judgement; sometimes we send them away with a polite refusal, sometimes we nuke content, sometimes we banninate attackers, sometimes we redirect to an article on the news events - just like everything else non Misplaced Pages, in other words. And we do it on our own authority, but with the small added caveat that we are doing it in response to a credible complaint, so the usual WP:AGF is perhaps slightly reinforced. We cite the ticket number for transparency, so others can review the ticket and check our actions, and also as a form of caution signal that the article has strayed too far into the muddy waters and needs especial care. And the response within the community is generally excellent, many of our best editors will see OTRS tickets and do a marvellous job of rigorously sourcing and refining an article. We do try very hard not to be capricious or arbitrary, or indeed to follow our own personal views (since in many cases the complainants are not the kind of people we would view with anything close to sympathy). It's not a legalistic thing, and the concept of appealing or whatever does not really apply; what happened was that the subject raised concerns, and I (and I think others) reviewed those concerns and looked at the usual questions, for example: are there sufficient independent biographical sources to ensure that we can cover the matters under dispute in a neutral way. In this case, largely not. There is undoubtedly enough material for an article on the controversies over his donations, but as biographical sources these stories have a critical weakness, which is that they are all cast in a negative light. It is a problem we face for any subject known primarily for controversial deeds. In this case the controversial deeds appear to me to be sufficiently similar or homogeneous as to permit of coverage as deeds, without the compelling need for an overarching biographical article to tie them together. And Misplaced Pages really should not be the first place to publish a biography of a figure on whom all sources relate to controversy. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • First, which 2 independent editors are we talking about, Guy and Cary or Guy and User:Jayjg??
  • Second, I see that this is the second time Guy used the same ticket to redirect this article to 2007 Labour party donation scandal, the first being here that was later reverted. The same day in March 2008 he made 4 edits on 2007 Labour party donation scandal starting here regarding Abrahamson. I'd assume to clean that up per the below. Evidently the redirection was not noticed or challenged or supported at the time by anyone on this pages talk or in edit reverts.
  • Third, this sounds good: And the response within the community is generally excellent, many of our best editors will see OTRS tickets and do a marvellous job of rigorously sourcing and refining an article and I believe can be done with this article. It's not like it's from minor, petty small town sources. It's all national British publications on an issue of vital interest to Brits - the possible corruption of their political system by secretly buying influence. It's like redirecting the Rod Blagojevich article to Illinois Governor Scandals.
  • Fourth, this is really dubious: "In this case the controversial deeds appear to me to be sufficiently similar or homogeneous as to permit of coverage as deeds, without the compelling need for an overarching biographical article to tie them together." Well, donor gate isn't the only thing. Being elected to one office; not being elected to another office because of an exposed hidden life; having major positions in high profile and/or influential organizations, some of which seek to influence British domestic and foreign policy; the 2005 past secret donations to the Labour Party and his assigns getting a currently problematic land deal finalized by government soon after; and the whole Donorgate situation which may lead to his being prosecuted and at least heavily fined. All discussed by a variety of WP:RS and just one search showed there are dozens more sources, many of which probably would back up these or new aspects of his life. Geez, it SHOULD be major British news if Misplaced Pages takes this article down.
  • Fifth: "And Misplaced Pages really should not be the first place to publish a biography of a figure on whom all sources relate to controversy." Great, I probably could find about 150 controversial articles on various alleged or rumored murderers, thieves, contributors to alleged terrorist groups with a lot fewer and a lot less WP:RS sources. Would you support redirecting them all to famous murders or famous theives or famous alleged contributors to terrorists? Seriously. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)