Talk:Edward McMillan-Scott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page protection[edit]

I have protected this article for the time being as there appears to be some dispute over the contents of the article and some edit warring. There has been several reverts with claims of POV in the edit summaries yet there has been no discussion on the talk page over the problem. Please discuss the changes required to the article here and when a consensus has been reached then let me know and I will unprotect the page. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection but I think this is a bit of a cock-up. The current version is, frankly, rubbish. Surely this, for example, "The following day, the reference to Kaminski's membership of NOP after 1989 was removed from his Wikipedia page" has no place in an article? In addition, whole sections of important information have been repeatedly twisted by anon IP vandals and then, finally, removed. I suggest an admin looks through the old versions and finds a suitable one and restores that. And then locks the page. Setwisohi (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reference to Cameron's new Polish allies being "extremists" would be OK if it is clear that that is McMillan-Scott's personal opinion and if this were supported by a quotation from him saying so in the media. This dispute in the Conservative Party is one the party leadership no doubts wants to play down, but it is surely a "notable" dispute in Wikipedia terms, and needs to be covered fairly. Alarics (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information I have started to create a replacement article, hopefully it will eventually remove the POV statements and contentious material. You can see the progress here, please do not change this but you can make comments on the talk page if you want to. Keith D (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Have had a look. It looks fine to me. I have suggested one important altertation on that talk page. Setwisohi (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment[edit]

Good work. And NPOV. I have concerns over just this sentence 'Uncomfortable with some members of the group'. It's quite important to explain just what it was that he felt uncomfotable with. I suggest that the following quote from McMillan-Scott (in ref 31) should suffice; "Despite what David Cameron has said there are already indications that some of the members have links with extremist groups and I feel very, very uncomfortable with that." Setwisohi (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I must say I struggled with the wording there and it is a bit bland so as to avoid having to talk about extremist groups. The problem with the quote is that it introduces David Cameron's previous remarks which leaves a hole as they are not specified and would need some explanation. I am just waiting for a review by another editor before going live so will see if they have any suggestions over that bit before making any changes. Keith D (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copy-editor has not really picked-up on this, only made a minor change which does not really modify the sense of the sentence. Re-reading it and thinking about it I have concluded that the sentence as I have it cannot stand as it is as it can be read a number of ways and so is rather ambiguous. How about "where he expressed the view that he was uncomfortable with the extreme political views held by some members of the group" though the the word extreme may be could be missed out to make it more neutral. Keith D (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"extreme views" certainly feels more neutral than "extremist groups" to me.--Harkey (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my suggestion for now to move this along and get the new version in place. If you feel there is still a problem then we can address it. I will probably leave the protection for a short while it see what reaction there is to the new version. Keith D (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source, McMillan-Scott actually said "extremist groups" - and so that is the phrase we must use. In an article about him, we must, surely, quote what he said and not be tempted to soften or alter that? Setwisohi (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still not really happy will this but would "where he expressed the view that he was uncomfortable with some members of the group having possible links with extremist groups" suit you. I expect the article will get changed to a POV version again when the protection lapses. Keith D (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence needs added "what he said/believed/claimed to be extreemist groups" as this is a matter of opinion. Otherwise it reads as if it is a fact which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John of Gaunt23 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not my wording above indicate that by the use of the word "possible" which I included specifically as it is not proven the group members have any links with extremist organisations? The sentence also indicates that it is his view and may not necessarily be fact. Keith D (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - yes it does but it is not in the article yet. I think that "alleged" is probably the best word. Also by way of background it is probably helpful to explain how EMS' pro European views are gemain to all this as an older version did. The argument is essentially over whether EMS' actions were based on his views of Kaminski's background or whether for he wanted to damage the ECR group and retain his vice presidency for his own reasons political and personal reasons and found Kaminski to be a good excuse. The article should hint at both sides by explaining EMS' long term hostility to the formation of a new group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John of Gaunt23 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per below I have added my new version to the article. Can you suggest possible wording/references for the information that you want to put in the article? Keith D (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the references. I would not be happy to see that material added to the article without it being properly sourced. As it stands, it is just opinion. Setwisohi (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keith D, Sorry for the delay in replying. The sentence "where he expressed the view that he was uncomfortable with some members of the group having possible links with extremist groups" is not as strong as I would like. I still think we should quote him verbatim. But I appreciate that it is sufficiently neutral to be acceptable as a compromise. So yes, please do go with that. Good work.
Once updated, methinks it would be a very good idea to keep this article semi-protected.. Setwisohi (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will update with the wording I have suggested. I will keep an eye on things and if necessary raise the protection again and revert to this version. Keith D (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reference to the letter is OK as it is only a footnote - the letter is germaine/important to the subject and the fact it is on a conservative supporting website is part of the course given the subject matter. If you can find it on another sourse add that rather than remove this one. John of Gaunt
Incidentally i believe Xerxes is EMS himself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John of Gaunt23 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that source. It's a blog, and so not acceptable according to standard Wikipedia policy, as a source. It's also hideosuly biased - and overtly so - against McMillan-Scott. By all means do find another source re: the Hague letter but please do not merely reinstate a blog as source material. Setwisohi (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases blogs are acceptable as sources according to the guide. All the reference is trying to establish is that a letter was written, the bias of the reference is irrelevant. If you can provide an acceptable reference for a letter being written then please do so. Keith D (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reference is useful and the only one availiable. It is only a reference to a fact so is uncontrevercial. Removal of the footnote seems to betray a bias. It should be left - Dragonfly292 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly292 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote[edit]

The changing of the wording of quotes from sources is not allowed, the removal of words to suit is against WP:QUOTE. You have to faithfully reproduce what it in the source. Add a sentence following this indicating that he apologised for the use of the word if you must. Keith D (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

It might be worthwhile to have a separate heading for China.Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

photo captions[edit]

this is mainly to user:stsc.

please read about the policy for photograph captions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Clear_identification_of_the_subject

you have repeatedly reverted a lot of captions, presumably because they contain words that you do not agree with.

please note that photo captions on pages do not need to be identical with photo captions in the original upload. sometimes the original upload has no caption. in addition, the caption you keep restoring is actually grammatically incorrect.

note in particular the sections there about context, relevance, and clear identification of the subject. also, take a look at, say, new york times captions. they include a rough date (at least year, typically) and they state where an activity took place. if you don't want another picture of him when he's not talking about organ harvesting, go find one and we can note that he was talking about saving the wildlife or whatever it happens to be.Happy monsoon day 05:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer himself describes the image as 'Ethan Gutmann Foreign Press Association Press Conference 28th April 2009'. If you don't have a source that says "Ethan Gutmann testifies on organ harvesting in China" in that image, you cannot say so by guessing. STSC (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Edward McMillan-Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Edward McMillan-Scott/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates  Done
  2. Requires infobox  Done
  3. Requires photograph
  4. Requires addition of a succession box
Keith D 12:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edward McMillan-Scott. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_McMillan-Scott&oldid=1204789479"