This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
[1] There are some pretty obvious WP:UNDUE and accuracy problems with this material. For example, the first paragraph creates the impression Wiggin received £11,000 he was not entitled to, but reading the source it sounds rather like he was entitled to the money, but entered the wrong address in the claims form for a period of time. This material needs careful vetting, and reducing so it represents an appropriate percentage of this BLP, rather than 50% of it. JN46614:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reverting as the editor, editing from a Houses of Parliament IP I might add, was just blanking the section without any explanation or effort to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. I considered it vandalism and having come from a Parliamentary IP, also a potential conflict of interest edit. I was monitoring edits from Parliament IPs when I came across the blanking on this article. Readro (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you monitering edits from Parliamentary IP's - they have a right not to be monitored just like everyone else. - Youreallycan19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better stop stalking and redirect your focus and wait for issues to be brought to discussion. COI arises of its own accord without such focused attention - your focus led you adding a completely undue section of content into a BLP - just because something is removed without a comment doesn't mean its a bad thing. Almost all users are unable to rise above their own personal conflict of personal bias to edit from a NPOV perspective, so there is no reason to focus on one particular group of users.Youreallycan19:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is lack of balance, which is caused not by details about the scandal but the near absence of information about Wiggin's political positions, and other notable events. We could use some suggestions that would round out the article. User:Fred BauderTalk01:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expenses section and censorship.
I think the expenses section should be rewritten but I don't think 1 IP should have power of censorship when they can simply complain.
The Telegraph made a number of mistakes and I intend to write something fair including right of reply. JRPG (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now updated this. It is a little long but the investigation was a very serious event and needs sufficient coverage to be able to provide a balanced view.JRPG (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gay equality section
Why is this section here? This MPs vote on other issues is not mentioned in detail. I propose it is removed, or at least included in the political career section - his record does not seem noteworthy enough (either in opposition or in favour) for the page to have a section dedicated to this. 194.70.34.202 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
