Talk:Tom Watson, Baron Watson of Wyre Forest
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Contradicting sources
Regarding Mr. Watson's personal life, a new interview with him in The Guardian states that he has been single since his divorce a few years ago
. This contrasts directly with what is said already, concerning the fact that he had got together with someone four months after his divorce. The Birmingham Post article is not WP:BLPPRIMARY, while The Guardian one is. Nevertheless, might be worth some discussion. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tom Watson (Labour politician). 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160721231632/http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-deputy-leadership-election to http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-deputy-leadership-election
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 10:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Does a politicians voting record need a secondary source?
I removed the addition of Watson's vote for the Iraq war - I see no reason why this should be included without a secondary source to show notability. What is inherently important about this as opposed to other votes? If it is so important then why hasn't it been covered by secondary sources? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why are you still seeking to remove this on the basis of WP:NOTABILITY? Are you familiar with WP policies, and what we mean by that? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Could you explain which policies you are referring to? WP:NOTABILITY is about "whether a given topic warrants its own article". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're the one claiming that it needs to be removed unless it shows notability! Notability is just not an issue here, please don't try and claim it as a big unchangeable policy to hide behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think notability in terms of content for an article is (generally!) quite well understood on Wikipedia, either something has a secondary source to show notability, or is inherently notable enough to put it in with a primary source, e.g. a politicians birth year, their school/university, dates of elections etc. You haven't specified why you think the vote was notable enough to include with a primary source, and equally why we shouldn't include other votes from the same source (of which there are hundreds). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I originally made the edit. There are a number of secondary sources for his vote aside from theyworkforyou.com - more than happy to reference them if you insist on it. I would have thought it would be fairly obvious to most people why a politicians vote on going to war would be more important than other votes, quite frankly. Total Dynamic (talk) 14.:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you TD, there are a large number of sources that highlight the defining importance of this particular vote. See for example BBC News. Given the significance of the vote on global history it may be the most significant thing any of those politicians did. ℕ ℱ 20:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I originally made the edit. There are a number of secondary sources for his vote aside from theyworkforyou.com - more than happy to reference them if you insist on it. I would have thought it would be fairly obvious to most people why a politicians vote on going to war would be more important than other votes, quite frankly. Total Dynamic (talk) 14.:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think notability in terms of content for an article is (generally!) quite well understood on Wikipedia, either something has a secondary source to show notability, or is inherently notable enough to put it in with a primary source, e.g. a politicians birth year, their school/university, dates of elections etc. You haven't specified why you think the vote was notable enough to include with a primary source, and equally why we shouldn't include other votes from the same source (of which there are hundreds). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're the one claiming that it needs to be removed unless it shows notability! Notability is just not an issue here, please don't try and claim it as a big unchangeable policy to hide behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Could you explain which policies you are referring to? WP:NOTABILITY is about "whether a given topic warrants its own article". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The vote was covered by the Labour whip and the majority of Labour (and other party) MPs voted in favour, so (without a secondary source), I don't see why this is particularly notable. Happy to include it if you have a secondary source though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class England-related articles
- Low-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors