Talk:David Ruffley

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

Train incident[edit]

Of the sources currently available concerning Ruffley's near miss, only one is claiming that it's a suicide: The Sun, which is hardly the most reliable source available. Since this is a fairly serious allegation, our BLP policy applies. I have amended the text & resourced accordingly. --Ibn (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Mail says Suicide Tory felt humiliated by expenses revelations and the Independent aays Tory MP in apparent suicide attempt on rail line Racklever (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Presently this is the type of speculative journalism that WP:BLP requires us to keep out of the article, things may change but for the time being it should not be included in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Kittybrewster 10:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither of the strings "specula*" nor "journali*" appear on WP:BLP; can you cite the specific section to which you refer please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It could be libelous to say he attempted suicide. The news sources are drawing a conclusion that he "appears" to have committed suicide without stating facts sufficient to draw that conclusion. Making the bald assertion that he attempted suicide or appears to have attempted suicide could leave the project vulnerable to legal action, which is exactly what BLP exists to protect against. -Rrius (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the mail actually quotes an eyewitness saying he jumped, so "apparent suicide attempt" seems reasonable. Unless he suddenly decided he and the train could occupy the same space at the same time, we're covered. -Rrius (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
And they report the Transport Police have rule out an accident. -Rrius (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: the string "gossip" appears on WP:BLP, as does "harm". Are any of the newspapers making the allegation in a position to state it as a fact? Is the material, to quote the policy, "presented as true". --Ibn 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.134.151 (talk)
The only reference in BLP to gossip says: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.". The sources given above are reliable; the information presented as true; and the information is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The only reference to harm (other then in reference to groups) is "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement.". Given that the term "suicide attempt" is widely used in the press, no harm can be caused by using it here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We are advised to take a conservative approach not a tabloid titillating journalistic sales figures approach. what are the BBC calling it? Do we have a citable comment from the subject that it was a suicide attempt? Are the police treating it as a suicide attempt? Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I repeat: can you cite the specific section to which you refer please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We do have a direct quote from a witness that he jumped and a report that the police have ruled out an accident. Short of suddenly believing you are Superman and can use super-strength to stop the train, there are not a lot of reasons to jump in front of it. Short of having even the slightest bit of evidence he lost his mind, it does appear he attempted to commit suicide from the evidence in the news sources, so passing on their conclusion that it is an apparent suicide would be within the bounds of BLP, especially if we recite the facts and say "which some new sources have referred to as an apparent suicide attempt". I don't care one way or the other whether it is added to the article, but it would not violate BLP to do so. -Rrius (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the quote from a named witness? -- (Ibn) 80.47.204.18 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What difference does the naming of an eyewitness make? -Rrius (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It's the difference between someone standing up for their assessment of the situation, and someone who was made up by the news source.
If you're using a Daily Mail quote, then, frankly, it's open to doubt. If you're using the one of the broadsheets, then that's different. (Ibn) 80.47.204.18 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I know that. I'm waiting for you to answer my question. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Who here wants to add the disputed content? User Rrius supports adding it and who else? User Rrius you want to add Suicide attempt , would you provide your desired addition and the citations here for discussion ~Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are quite wrong. Andy wants to add it. I specifically said I don't care whether we add it, but that we are covered from a BLP stance if we do. I said I don't care, but it would be more accurate to say I am ambivalent. On the one hand, it is sourced and noteworthy. On the other hand, personally, it just feels impertinent to say it this early. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't expressed a view one way or the other. I have, though, twice asked Off2riorob to cite the part of BLP which he claims supports his stance; and he has still not done so. I wonder why not? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So User:Rrius you don't care whether it is added or not but in your opinion there is no problem with adding it? If I am mistaken it is because I have looked at your comments such as .. so "apparent suicide attempt" seems reasonable. and this comment it does appear he attempted to commit suicide from the evidence in the news sources, so passing on their conclusion that it is an apparent suicide would be within the bounds of BLP, if I am mistaken it is through your comments, if you support adding something then please present your desired addition and supporting citations here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I think Rrius's comments were based on his reading of sources. And nothing else. He's obviously not a scandal-monger. -- (Ibn) 80.47.204.18 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No, Rob, I said what I meant. BLP does not bar saying that it was "an apparent suicide attempt". Full stop. However, regardless of the fact that we could put it in, I am uncomfortable with doing so. The reason you are mistaken is because either didn't read or ignored me when I said, "I don't care one way or the other whether it is added to the article, but it would not violate BLP to do so," at 18:12 (UTC) today. -Rrius (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You have always been a person that has supported, I have a citation and I can add whatever I want. This whole discussion is childish, get back to me if you make your mind up. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Childish?—interesting, perhaps ironic, choice of words. You misrepresent my approach to adding verified information as you have done elsewhere, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It is clear that noteworthy, verified content should be included unless it is barred by a policy such as BLP or there is some compelling reason not to do; that is the basic idea behind contributing to Wikipedia, not just some silly notion I came up with. In any event, I have made up my mind. I am neutral on whether the information should be added, but I will continue to reject your attempts to hold information to an invented standard that is not reflected in what WP:BLP actually says. The policy makes clear that negative, but verified, information can and should be included in BLPs, but you continually try to read that part out. I've rejected that before, I reject it now, and I'll reject it in the future. -Rrius (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Childish yes this is not a school project. I don't know what your are disrupting this talkpage for when you say you don't care if the content is included or not, then what do you want here? Are you here as part of your dislike of me? I would request you don't disrupt BLP articles simply because of your dislike of me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. No one regards this as a school project and nothing in what I said calls for that bizarre and insulting response on your part.
  2. I am not disrupting the talk page in any way shape or form. You have decided to make this about personalities and to engage in a discussion about our very different understandings (to put it neutrally) about BLP.
  3. It is asinine to suggest that I can't counter bad arguments against a proposition just because I don't necessarily support it. I want each Wikipedia article to be the best it can be, and part of that is ensuring that decisions are made on the most reasonable basis. When I do take one side or other in a talk page discussion, I will explicitly take exception to on my side if I disagree with them. In any event, allowing your idiosyncratic view of BLP to find its way into the consensus at this article would work against calling an attempted suicide after a suitable interval has passed.
  4. I have said before and I say again that I don't dislike you. I respect you as an editor even though I think you are wildly misguided in how you understand WP:BLP. If you don't like me, there's nothing I can do about that, but it doesn't change how I feel about you or whether I object to your personal standards for inclusion of material at articles. -Rrius (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You can say you don't dislike me a hundred thousand times but you clearly do, all I ask is that you don't disrupt BLP articles in an attempt to make your point against me, whatever your point is. I also don't want your respect, please just stop your personal issues against me disrupting at BLP articles, like this one. You don't care either way about the content you are only here to dispute me. Please take me off your watchlist I am tired of your repeated, but rob I have a citation so I can add whatever I like. You have come here to this talkpage and only disputed with my attempt to keep the suicide claims out of the article and you don't even support its inclusion, weird, please stay away from me as much as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not disrupting anything, and I am not doing anything just to make a point. I disagree with your position, so I am saying so. And I will always do so. You have a weird interpretation of BLP, and there's nothing I can do about that. I stumbled upon this discussion because I read the news about him and wanted to learn more. If you go back and look, I originally argued against inclusion until I read the Mail article, so please stop acting as though this is anything personal about you.
In the end, if you think disagreeing with you is the same thing as not liking you, that is your problem, and there is nothing I can do about that either. -Rrius (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I didn't know what the question was, you are asking what part of BLP applies, present your desired addition and the citations you are supporting it with and I wll be able to comment on it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My standards (for the addition of such disputable content) are high as Rrius will tell you, I don't support the addition of tabloid style titillation and speculation. I notice for example the BBC have not once mentioned this was a suicide bid. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds_bucks_and_herts/10357834.stm but the standards of journalistic reporting at the BBC are high like mine. The BBC also have the luxury of being sponsored and not having to titillate and dramatize to sell a product, as wikipedia also don't. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

But please present your addition and the citations that support it and I will comment on it. If you feel it is policy compliant you are also free to insert it. Although I prefer it if you present it here first as there are three editors that have objected to the issue being included unless there were additional details and changes which there have not been. Off2riorob (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Racklever's citations are already linked to above. The original edit by an IP contained the unimpeachable assertion that the Sun was reporting at as a suicide attempt; I don't know if there were any facts supporting that, so I don't know if that was worthy of inclusion. The edit also stated that the Times was reporting he jumped. Perhaps that, without characterisation of it as a suicide attempt or attempted suicide attempt, should be in the article if we can find a second source (which I don't think the Mail is; they seem to rely on the Times account). Andy Mabbett has not specified his proposed language.
FWIW, assuming that the IP who made the original edit was not one of the two who's spoken in favour of inclusion, so obviously supports it. I, as stated, will not take a position on adding "attempted suicide" or the like for the foreseeable future. By my count that's a dead-even split. -Rrius (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear who you (Off2riorob) are addressing;, but I suppose it might be me. You have asserted that "this is the type of speculative journalism that WP:BLP requires us to keep out of the article" and "we are advised to take a conservative approach not a tabloid titillating journalistic sales figures approach". Please cite the part(s) of BLP which support those assertions. I don't need to present any hypothetical edit to you, for you to do that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not here to discuss policy with you and that is not what this talkpage is for. I am here to defend this living person from contentious additions, if you have nothing you want to add then we have nothing to discuss here, if you want to discuss policy with me there is always your talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to "discuss policy with me", I'm asking you to substantiate the assertions you have made about how people may or may not edit this article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated assertions[edit]

Since Off2riorob either will not or cannot substantiate his assertions that "this is the type of speculative journalism that WP:BLP requires us to keep out of the article" and "we are advised to take a conservative approach not a tabloid titillating journalistic sales figures approach" I think we can ignore them; at least with regard to the issue addressed above, which is neither "speculative journalism" nor "a tabloid titillating journalistic sales figures approach". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am here , what do you want to add to this article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Ruffley. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 10:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Ruffley. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)