Talk:Dan Wootton

Edit request

I work at The Sun newspaper, where recently an error occurred in which an article was published based on quotes from actress Jennifer Lawrence without any proper accreditation to the original interview, which took place on The Howard Stern radio show in the US. Furthermore, when the article appeared on The Sun's website the article suggested Jennifer Lawrence had spoken directly to The Sun. This was not the case, and as soon as the error was raised by Mr Stern and pointed out to the editorial management it was immediately corrected to confirm that the quotes were given in an interview to Howard Stern. A footnote detailing the correction remains on the article, confirming this. The link is below. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/5763168/jennifer-lawrence-wears-plunging-white-dress-promotes-red-sparrow/ When in print the article appeared under the byline of journalist Dan Wootton, who was on annual leave at the time. The error was made by another member of staff entirely without his knowledge. As a result of the error an amendment has now been added to Dan's page accusing him of being "a plagiarist". This allegation is both extremely damaging and unfair, as Dan had no knowledge or personal involvement whatsoever in the short piece which appeared in the newspaper. To personally label him "a plagiarist" is wholly inaccurate. I respectfully request that the incorrect reference is removed from this page. Simonboyle87 (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done There were multiple issues with this claim, which was removed pending clarification from the person who added it and better sourcing if it exists. Regards,  Spintendo      21:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Far Right Conspiracy Incident

Where has this section gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.249.4.241 (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Accusations regarding judge

Per Mx. Granger's note on the edit history(7 June 2022‎) for what was previously Cite #31, I looked into it to find a better source, and not only found none, I also found it's irrelevant, and the accusations in the source untrue. The only truth of the accusation is that Wootton and Palmer appeared on the same radio station - However, Palmer's position was as an unpaid expert(primarily on Tax law) on a different show, on a different day and time, while Wootton hosted a drivetime Celeb gossip and advice show. There are not other evident connections between the two, and no other solid evidence - by wikipedia's standards or any other reasonable standard - that the two knew each other in anything more than passing at best and given the largest possible benefit of the doubt, and most likely didn't know each other at all. In my view, not only is the source pretty bad, the text that cite #31 is for serves no purpose other than to mislead and suggest impropriety in service of another agenda that has nothing to do with wikipedia, and should be removed per wiki(specifically Bio of living persons) policy. Churba (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Bad behaviour

How do we manage the claims of his former partner that are emerging today? So far there's only one link that's detailing things https://democracyunlocked.co.uk/sex-scandal-dan-wootton-latest-presenter-to-face-allegations/

Given that Pop Bitch ( https://popbitch.com/latest-email/ ) is willing to push the matter, given it's very wary of legal issues, things look very sure.

Hmm.... Dairyflat (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Users must be careful when coming to defamation and libel, and at this time no reliable sources have covered anything. Therefore, we should avoid any additions of potentially defamatory and libellous content. Fats40boy11 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting as both of those sources mentioned above have a sound track record. That is, they are reliable. I believe you have this quite wrong.

DC. 2407:7000:9B74:AF77:781D:98E3:81C4:DD3A (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is there is a lot of speculation at the moment, and other than social media and the two sources mentioned above, no other reliable source has covered anything on this. There is no need to rush into adding content and we should wait before adding content that may be defamatory or libellous. Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is where we have to be careful. With respect to " no other reliable source" what would you view as reliable? A small circulation vehicle that's accurate or a major circulation vehicle, like the Daily Mail, that full of nonsense? Dilemma. 49.224.85.183 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is viewed as unreliable by community consensus and also would not be appropriate to use. Please see WP:RSP for what sources are deemed reliable and what isn’t. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's terrific to know. Thank you.

Mike. 49.224.85.183 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Allegations in the lead section

One source, Byline Times, has recently been publishing allegations against Wootton. If these allegations are deemed to be WP:DUE weight for the WP:LEAD section, then it's important to include Wootton's response. He said all criminal allegations were "untrue" and that he is the victim of a "smear campaign".

I have no idea whether the allegations are true or not, but my view, as an individual WP editor, is not important. Currently (as of 30 July 2023) Wootton has not been arrested for any crime and has not, as yet, been suspended as a presenter on GB News. The Metropolitan Police have said: "Officers are assessing information to establish whether any criminal offence has taken place. There is no police investigation at this time." With no arrest, or even a police investigation as yet, there has to be a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

WP:BLP guidelines state that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

I have tonight trimmed from the lead section the content "He did not address other parts of the claims, such as his alleged use of the alias Martin Branning."

I am trimming this for the following reasons:

1) The WP:LEAD section should only be a concise summary of the most important content in the article.

2) As well as Wootton stating that all criminal allegations were "untrue" and that he is the victim of a "smear campaign", he also said: "I would like nothing more than to address those spurious claims. I could actually spend the next two hours doing so, but on the advice of my lawyers I cannot comment further." To include in the lead section "He did not address other parts of the claims, such as his alleged use of the alias Martin Branning", but stated that on the advice of his lawyers he could not comment further on claims he described as spurious, would make the lead section too bulky in my view.

3) There may be a risk of WP:EDITORIAL if in Wiki voice it is said in the lead section what Wootton did not respond to, rather than sticking to neutrally worded facts of what he did respond to. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits: I agree with this removal from the lead section. I think a lot more should be removed from the lead regarding the specifics of the allegations. These can be covered layer in the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

References