Talk:Angus MacNeil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent Scandal[edit]

MacNeil - who has taken a socially conservative line on sexual matters in Parliament - recently has become embroiled in a sex scandal. It is widely asked in the broadsheet scottish press whether this will harm Alasdair Allan's changes at the Scottish election and so MacNeil's conduct is more than a tabloid sex story but is rather something impacting an ongoing election. This is not POV but a relfection of the press coverage.--Sjharte 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You, and others, have made absolutely zero attempt to present the Sunday Mail/Daily Record smear campaign in a professional, NPOV manner. I strongly advise you to desist from your blatantly partisan efforts, or else this will be brought to the attention of Admins, as WP:BLP is taken very seriously around here. --Mais oui! 10:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to represent the story in an even handed manner. All of the Scottish press have covered the story (including the Scotsman, the Herald etc). The thrust of the broadsheet coverage is the efefct that this will have on a socially conservative contituency. The attempts to edit out a story uncomfortable to those who support the SNP is a POV misuse fo the wiki edit process. If you feel that particualr sentences could be reworded tyo be more NPOV than please do so. You edits should be aimed at reflecting NPOV and not in removing a story you don't wish to have on public display.--Sjharte 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Could we please have some direct citation for the following:
The Scotsman reported that, following this story, MacNeil has acquired the nickname "MP3" in some quarters.
the Scottish Press questioned whether MacNeil's behaviour would damage the chances
In addition the phrase "Although to many" seems to be weasel words unless there is a citation of this being a third party comment. Please note I am not taking a line here, just passing through and trying to help before we get an edit war, Pedro |  Chat  10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
that particualr party of the story is referenced in the link "Will there be a MacNeil effect". The Scotsman is one of the main Scottish broadsheet newspapers. A web search will show several serious newspapers commenting on the MacNeil and its likely impact on the election.--Sjharte 10:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. On BLP's it really is best to provide references within the article text, not a list of external sources at the bottom, using the <ref> markup. I have done this for the last statement. Cheers ! Pedro |  Chat  11:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
many thanks - the technical aspects of the editing process sometimes let me down.--Sjharte 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm pretty good on wiki markup so please feel free to ask if you want a hand. Your tidy of the last statement was great. Please don't take my comment of "weasle words" to heart, it wasn't an ad hominum comment. Pedro |  Chat  11:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
no offence was taken - was just explaining why the words came out. I have found a story that says that the General Teaching Council for Scotland are investigating MacNeil following this incident and so this makes the matter more than tabloid news and of real political concern. I will, of course, source the story when adding it to the article.--Sjharte 11:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, this scandal is clearly verifiable and of media interest. It certainly deserves mention in this article. However, this is a biography and not an an article on the scandal. Thus, we must make sure that WP:BLP is respected and the negative information is not given 'undue weight' or recorded in unnecessary detail. It looks to me like the information currently in the article needs summarized and not expanded at greater length.--Docg 11:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Says who?[edit]

"MacNeil's credibility as a Member of Parliament for his constituency... was heavily damaged by allegations of a 2005 sex scandal"

Err... says who exactly?!? The Daily Record? C'mon, is Wikipedia an encyclopaedia or a pseudo-encyclopaedia? --Mais oui! 11:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

those weren't my words but it is clear that ceredibility is a matter of discussion in the press. rather than delete please find a form of wording you coniser NPOV that reflects this.--Sjharte 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"MacNeil's career as a Member of Parliament for his constituency... was affected by allegations of a 2005 sex scandal"

Err... says who exactly?!? The Daily Record? C'mon, is Wikipedia an encyclopaedia or a pseudo-encyclopaedia? --Mais oui! 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, rather than debate your personal POV re the Daily Record, I'd point to the Scotsman, the Herald and the Stornoway Gazzette. The fact that the GTC are looking into this issue (although not mounting an enquiry - that would happen later and even then only if the GTC felt an investigation was necessary) shows that this is more than a kiss and tell.--Sjharte 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only thing that could affect his "career" (itself a rather POV term) as an MP is the electorate of his constituency. They will get their chance at the next UK general election. Until then, that sentence must go. --Mais oui! 11:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

cool it[edit]


I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

Let this be discussed before any text is re-inserted, there is no rush here.--Docg 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This scandal can be reported - but we have to be very careful.

  1. All allegations must be directly referenced and attributed
  2. No referenced to discussion boards - not even of the Scotsman
  3. NO general comments like 'the Scottish Press say' - what all of the?

Discuss this here - it is better to have no information for a while until we rebuild this in a neutral manner--Docg 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

the editing out of the material from the Scottish press has in itself been a reflection of POV.--Sjharte 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this matter to be resolved. It is sad that material that is live in the Scottish news conscerning a public servant and which the press consider possibly impacting on an importrant election can not be discussed on wiki. Hopefully this can be resolved quickly and the relevant matterial sourced from publications such as the Scotsman and the Stornoway Gazzette can be reinstated. What next?--Sjharte 11:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we discuss it. There's no reason why an outline of the details of the scandal cannot be put in. But let us agree what is and what is not relevant, referenced and reliable. There's no rush - if this takes a day or two. But etit wars - or allowing inappropriate content to remain for a while are no good.--Docg 11:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Totally agree with Doc. As per my earler comments, and Doc's, everything should be carefully cited. Althoug I agree that no harm will come if we take a day or two it is a fact that Wikipedia is used as a resource by many people, who often have no wish to edit, and would not even know what the discussion page is. It is therefore fair to have at least some, well cited, parts of this event within the main article quickly, in order to serve Wikipedia's readers. Pedro |  Chat  11:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you make some suggestions here - and we discuss to seek consensus.--Docg 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Doc, you appear to have missed my point, for which I apologise. I have never heard of this article subject, and have no interest in him. I ran across the page on RC patrol, and have merely tried to help head off an edit war situation that seemed to brewing (no offence to other editors intended). I can't really contribute except to try to help achieve a NPOV I am sure we all strive for. Pedro |  Chat  12:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Why is the fact that Barra is 'staunchly Catholic' relevant? Certainly it is true, but: 1) Do the neutral sources bear out that as relevant? 2) Many of the Islands are Staunchly Presbyterian - are they less against adulatory? I'm going to remove this unless there's a good reason given for it--Docg 11:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are Barra, and Catholics, getting singled out here? There is clearly an agenda behind those choice of words. --Mais oui! 11:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I was about to query why "staunchly catholic" without a cite when I wikilinked it. I would be bold but page is now protected. Pedro |  Chat  12:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


If everyone is agreeing to work together here and not to make any controversial changes without proper consensus first, I will remove the protection. Any objections to that?--Docg 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone completely uninvolved with this page, I don't see the problem with the information removed here [1] this affair was widely reported in both broadsheets and tabloids, if it is referenced and cited to such publications I don't see a problem with it being included; bear in mind MacNeil has admitted this incident. Giano 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please un protect if page is on your watchlist. It can, after all, be reprotected, but I am sure that the main parties here will use the talk page before major edits. Thanks. Pedro |  Chat  13:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Giano, to explain why the section was removed. Of course this incident should be reported in this article. However, the section removed has 1) uncited material. 2) A claim that "The Scottish Press have questioned..." with a link to a message board as verification 3) Observations that he's being investaged by the GTC - but since they investigate any complaint that's hardly significant thus is 'undue weight'. 4) Long quotations may unbalance the article - and whether we need to report the names of the young ladies is questionable - we are not a tabloid. To make it clear - I fully support a brief outline of the details being included in the article with proper citations. The incident is significant and noted in media sources. There's no reason not to do this properly.--Docg 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone, uninvolved in the article and who did not hear about the scandal at the time - but rather, only moments ago when looking up the original News of the World article about Angus Deayton - yet by random coincidence was reading the Angus MacNeil article this morning, I think it's disgraceful that the scandal receives no mention on this page: it does damage to wikipedia's credibility as an unbaised source of information when there is not even an NPOV passage saying 'the Scotsman said so-and-so'. There is such a thing as a sin of omission. (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-added 2005 scandel[edit]

Sky4t0k removed some referenced material. I suspect it was the lurid tabloid tone which caused it to get dumped, as the reference was quite clear. I've added it back in a (hopefully) more restrained tone. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor English[edit]

....had "kissed and fondled" with a two girls aged 17 and 18 in a hotel room in 2005.

What? Shouldn't this be changed to...had "kissed and fondled" two girls aged 17 and 18 in a hotel room in 2005.

I know there was an edit/delete fest earlier but could someone at least change this to something legible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Outback the koala (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angus MacNeil. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)