Talk:David Threlfall

92.8.11.246

{{adminhelp}}Please revdel 92.8.11.246's recent edit to this page. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Twitter

I have not been active in some time, and I am not sure what has been discussed here about this.

1. When did we start deleting content from the history. 2. Could the existence of allegations be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TWTAnon (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Some edits have been revdeleted as they were potentially libellous. Twitter is not a reliable source. The current rumour mill is unsuitable for inclusion in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Irish newspapers

The rumours have now been confirmed by a major Irish newspaper. I don't know at present which newspaper or whether its on their website, but it probably is. It's a realiable source for you if its on there, otherwise a user from Ireland would have to have a print copy. paul85 (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The Irish newspaper the Sunday World on 5 June 2011 had as its front page headline "PAULINE'S SHAMELESS AFFAIR - Star axed after real life sex romps with Frank".[1] It is no great secret that the UK press has been itching to publish this for weeks, and that it is allegedly the subject of the injunction known as ETK (check out the obvious hint dropping in this Daily Mail story: [2]).

The Sunday World is a tabloid source, and their website does not seem to have the story (this also happened with the Sunday Herald photo of Ryan Giggs). It will be interesting to see if the Sunday World story produces further coverage. If there is reliable sourcing, it can go in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is also in the Daily Mail today, minus the names.[3] As with CTB v News Group Newspapers a few weeks ago, the ETK anonymised privacy injunction is now dead in the water (perhaps the River Liffey). The real issue here is whether an alleged affair between David Threlfall and Pauline McLynn is wikinotable. Not really, at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Added to article. Since Pauline McLynn is Irish, it should have been obvious that a London court could not prevent a Dublin-based newspaper from publishing these claims.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I made the original post on this earlier (although doubtless my IP will have changed, am on AOL and IP is some sort of proxy always changing every couple of hours). I thought I'd point it out having read about it on the Mail website late last night though I'm sure it would have come to Wiki editors attention quickly anyway as its been on numerous blogs this morning as well as that Mail article. I was aware the rumour was true, its been on Twitter for ages of course (long before the media storm the other weekend) as well as other blogs and I had indeed seen that earlier Mail article which had in effect confirmed the rumour cryptically (lot of strange articles appearing in newspapers recently on a lot of people!) Also Private Eye confirmed it cryptically as they have with at least five other injunctions. But I'm aware cryptic statements in Private Eye are of little use to Wikipedia. I would agree that the injunction is now effectively dead in the Irish Liffey, one primary reason being than its now on Wikipedia! I don't know if its on the superinjunction controversy article yet but I'm sure the very fact that it is on Wiki will get it more publicity, probably from the Mail themselves, as in the Giggs case. Not quite the same situation though, cant see him being named in parliament, he sensibly isnt trying to sue anyone. I do think it is notable for inclusion but ironically only because its the subject of a very controversial and high profile injunction. The details in themselves would not be that notable otherwise. Ridiculous situation though really, all it takes is a foreign news source to report on any of these injunctions and Wiki can name them and then any UK citizen can then read about it but media still cant discuss it openly. Wonder what the next one named by foreign media will be? Although it is rather amusing and Jimmy Wales seems delighted by this stuff coming out on Wiki! I know the Times of India named a recent footballer injunction but its not online. Anyway, well done finding all those sources this morning, I didn't even know which newspaper it had appeared in. Assumed it might be on the newspapers website but clearly not. Must admit though, given the actresses involvement it did occur to me it might only be a matter of time before a mischievous Irish newspaper might print the story and then it might end up on here! paul85 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, considerable thought went into adding this to the article. As with Ryan Giggs/Imogen Thomas, the claims themselves are non-notable. However, we have now reached the same farcical Spycatcher type of situation where people can read about this in the foreign media but not in the UK. Hopefully the penny will soon drop on this type of lunacy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

More coverage from the Irish media here:

• Sligo Actress At Centre of UK Super Injunction
• Newspaper Headlines 05/06/11

Probably more to come.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is farcical, seems Wiki has now been mentioned on the Mail website. And judging by those links its all over the Irish media now. And so the farce continues! paul85 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Re: this edit: I am not going to edit war over this issue. However, Irish media sources have named the people involved in this injunction. This is correct information, and it is generally agreed that injunctions of this kind cannot be enforced outside England and Wales. See also [4].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP: notable or not?

• It is now clear that the media is nowhere near as interested in ETK as it was in CTB v News Group Newspapers‎. As a result, I do not support adding this to the article (or the other article involved) for the time being. There are WP:BLPNAME issues, and since lessons seem to have been learned from CTB by the legal teams involved (no legal action against Twitter etc), the need to add the names is not great. It is notable that the names have appeared in the Irish media (this is mentioned in 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy‎), but unless further media coverage occurs, there is no pressing need to add the names.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If this subject wasn't subject to a superinjunction It would have received an amount of media attention that would have made excluding it untenable. Even with the superinjunction it has received enough reliable sources to be included. I don't like the idea of UK courts censoring content in Wikipedia BLP articles, if Wikipedia policies are followed this information should be included. Polyquest (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the first part, the injunction is notable, the extra-marital affair is not. Until the coverage of this goes beyond a couple of rather obscure Irish media sources, it fails WP:BLPNAME and WP:UNDUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:BLPNAME and WP:UNDUE are primarily policies to address editorial content and deal only peripherally with sourcing. The sources so far mentioning this information should be sufficient under reliable source policy. The lack of an overabundance of sources is a direct result of the superinjunction. If a government can stop all sources from commenting on a piece of information we cannot include it due to reliable source policy, but if a government is only partially successful, there are reliable sources, and the information isn't under dispute, being overly persnickety in our application of policy will only allow for courts to gain the de facto ability to censor Wikipedia. Polyquest (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Polyquest. The most notable fact about this actor (to anyone who is not British) is his involvement in the super-injunction controversy. It seems a disservice to omit the most notable thing about this actor from this page. CavalierLion (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As stated previously, I am not going to edit war on this. However, I would take issue with the claim that this is notable to the point of being a must at the moment. There is a dilemma because the information is both correct and available in foreign media sources, but it has not caused anything like the same amount of fuss as CTB (Giggs/Thomas).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

When the information is reliable sourced how much of a fuss is required to include it in the article? Is the same level of press attention required in cases were there is ongoing censorship in the media? Polyquest (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is exactly one week on, and apart from the Sunday World and Sligo Today story, there has been no mainstream media coverage. This is the main benchmark, but even on Twitter there has been very little interest. It is notable that the names are now reliably sourced, but since BLPs should be written conservatively, there is no need to shout them from the rooftops if nobody else is doing it. The names are currently in 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy, but there does not seem to be a pressing need to name them in either of the BLPs. This would make the injunction look more notable than it actually is at the moment. The coverage has been tiny compared to Giggs/Thomas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a little difficult to gauge interest given the present situation. Do you know if Irish companies that have business interests in the UK would be affected by the superinjunction? I don't think it has to get the same level of attention as the Giggs/Thomas story to warrant inclusion. I don't know why the bar is being set there. And I don't know about Twitter but there was certainly a sharp spike in interest on Google. Polyquest (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably the big Irish media sources (RTE, Irish Times etc) do have offices and assets in London, which could theoretically lead to legal action if they published the story. No doubt the London tabloids would splash the story if they could, but ETK could be any anonymised privacy injunction. The real issues here are that: a) the story can be published in the foreign media but not in the UK, and b) ETK is a routine extra-marital affair with no suggestion of blackmail or other criminal activity involved. Lord Wakeham, the former chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, has said that the courts should not grant injunctions in this type of situation. Although the coverage would not need to reach the Giggs/Thomas level to be notable, it does not seem to have jumped over the BLP hurdle yet. The Sunday World story spiked on Twitter when it was published, but in the last few days mentions of the names have dropped to near zero.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the hurdle which must be jumped in order to achieve notability is both subjective and opaque, and the information being used to evaluate whether that standard has been met has been distorted by censorship. The fact that the information has been removed from so many other places increases the value of having it here on Wikipedia, but paradoxically it makes justifying its presence more difficult. It would be unfortunate if Wikipedia's BLP policies were interpreted in such a way as to give superinjunctions de facto authority on Wikipedia. While the information will sometimes get enough attention to mandate inclusion, like with Giggs/Thomas, in many cases, like this one, a superinjunction will choke off enough press coverage to stave off inclusion in Wikipedia if BLP is interpreted rigorously. Polyquest (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please guys enough already. Despite IanMacM's efforts to move forward, the debate keeps returning to a lawyerly exchange around a distorted interpretation of events. Namely that ETK injunction is a superinjunction, a form of government censorship, and, in one account I have read, a sinister attempt by the English courts to claim universal juristiction. This interpretation is encouraged by the tabloids and blogs. It is a crude and misleading caricature, which is supporting the position of the tabloid press by constraining the debate. I hope that it will find a place in the Wikipedia page as an object of analysis and not continue to hinder its productive development. In my view availability bias applies to many of the discussions I have seen. In this space it seems to have blocked thinking about the silence of mainstream media, leading to the exclusion of a real possibility that responsible editors and advisors could be acting not out of fear of a draconian legal process, but because they have been persuaded by the arguments that restraint is reasonable, humane and in the wider public interest in a democratic society. In this alternative view the shortage of reliable sources could be influenced by consent, not mere submission. Egonb (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The most notable thing about ETK is that it has created the situation described in this cartoon in the current edition of Private Eye: [5]. As a UK resident, I find it highly unsatisfactory that this situation has occurred, while acknowledging that the names in ETK are not hugely notable. Over the weekend, an interview with David Eady by Joshua Rozenberg was published [6] in which Eady cited Von Hannover v Germany (full text here). This little known case is arguably at the heart of the current controversy, as most extra-marital affairs would fail the public interest defence that it lays out. Had ETK happened in the USA, the names would have been on TMZ.com and Perez Hilton without any legal restraints as long as the material was true. For Wikipedia, the real issue is WP:BLP. Without the injunction the affair would almost certainly have been non-notable. As it is, there is some notability because of the 2011 controversy, and because of the claim that the real reason why one of the stars left a Channel 4 show was not published. There is a subtle but real form of censorship here, as the UK media would have published this by now without the injunction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't compel submission than argue that perhaps the compelled party really consented freely. Your hypothetical characterization of the media's thought process bears no relation to the media I am familiar with. Make no mistake, media outlets in the UK would have published this were it not for the superinjunction. The potential effects of this legislation on Wikipedia are disturbing. Obtaining a superinjunction cost 50,000 to 100,000 pounds, we might therefore see the treatment of information in articles about wealthy people diverge from the treatment notable but less wealthy people receive. And than there is the removal of the information itself; it might not be important to be able to judge the moral character of an actor but what about a politician? We cannot blind ourselves to the issues that are at stake. The bar for BLP notability of negative information is already hazy, the affect of the superinjunction on the media landscape is only making the thought process that goes into making this determination cloudier. Given the presence of reliable sources I think it would be best to err on the side of inclusion given the overall situation. There are a couple editors on each side of this debate, if we can't establish consensus it might be best to introduce this discussion into other venues. Polyquest (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou both for prompt responses. I want to take up the issues later today when I will have time and space to set out my thinking with more clarity and concision than I have right now. Please bear with me. I fully agree that, without the injunction, the identities of ETK and X would have been made public by NGN (Sun, NotW), but this argument is circular. Their interest in speedy disclosure prompted ETK's application to the High Court and subsequent Appeal against the judgement. There is censorship of a more powerful nature than the threat to sue or to complain to the regulatory body (PCC). The unknowns are the positions of other media outlets, about which I cannot make any assumptions (except for the Daily Mail and the Guardian) .I hope these points can be common ground. I do however have a great difficulty with labelling the action a superinjunction. This has no basis, but the media-driven campaign about it is dominating the agenda. All of the Irish sources I have seen have repeated this misrepresentation and I think this diminishes their authority. (They can repeat names, but how far can they be trusted beyond that?) This line of thinking leads to some difficult conclusions, the most salient being that there is no secure and reliable source for something that by now may be widely believed. Thanks for the references; I can reply in kind having discovered a wealth of well presented reports and opinion pieces on Inforrm's Blog (International Forum for Responsible Media) inforrm.wordpress.com. I hope you find the material relevant & helpful. I've said far more than I expected. Apologies for this.--Egonb (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ETK is an anonymised privacy injunction, not strictly a super-injunction, which cannot be mentioned at all (eg Trafigura). This was discussed at Talk:2011_British_privacy_injunctions_controversy#Definition_of_super-injunctions. However, many parts of the UK media use the word to describe a privacy injunction, even though it is inaccurate. I would also like to ask Egonb if he/she is involved with ETK or X, as this type of situation can cause issues in BLPs.[7] It would be useful to get some input on this BLP situation from fresh users, as we all seem to have stated our positions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a message to the ANI.Polyquest (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To ianmacm: I am aware of the distinction, but troubled that it is not consistently observed. I see more than inaccuracy in media usage. I have no wish to cause needless disruption. The Q is reasonable and my A is No. I have no independent knowledge of either party. I will check out the referral and consider an option of tactical retreat.Egonb (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not causing any disruption, there is often a bit of tension in the clash of ideas, there are conflicting interests that need to be reconciled. I have seen talk pages that are far more heated than what we're seeing here. Polyquest (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is mild stuff compared to some talk page debates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the heat in the kitchen but the pace of the crew's work. I've visited the noticeboard but could not see a conclusion. Have I missed something or have unrealistic expectations?--Egonb (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK I can see it's in trainEgonb (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussions can drag on without reaching firm conclusions, but it was useful to get some fresh input. If ETK's lawyers are reading this, it would be interesting to know if they think that this type of situation can continue indefinitely. One of the big lessons of CTB is that once publication occurs in the foreign media or on the Internet, there is a certain amount of denial in continuing with the injunction. The irony is that if the News of the World had published the story as intended in March, it would have been all over and done with by now. This is what happens when judges try to be newspaper editors, which could not happen in the USA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Ruling injuncted immediate publication. I'm not inclined to second guess the thinking of any of the participantsEgonb (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that this decision will be based on Wikipedia policy not UK law, which has no authority over Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is based in the US. 99.203.151.179 (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation's position on this type of issue is stated at Talk:CTB_v_News_Group_Newspapers#G_and_G_v_Wikimedia_Foundation_Inc_.5B2009.5D_EWHC_3148_.28QB.29.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Does this seem strange to anyone else?

The fact that Threlfall has been reported to be the 'ETK' in the case ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd is mentioned in the article 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy (see 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy#ETK), but not in this one. Is there any reason why it would be a BLP violation here but not there? I've read through the discussion above, and I understand that there currently isn't consensus to add the material to this article. I just thought I'd add my voice to those saying it should be added here (provided it's kept to one sentence, and strictly based on what the RSs say). Where a negative statement is clearly supported by reliable sources, it doesn't necessarily violate BLP to add it to an article; the question is simply, 'is this an important fact, and relevant to Threlfall's career?'. That's a subjective judgement, but I would have to say that yes, it is. Robofish (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Short version: if there isn't any problem with mentioning Threlfall's name in that article, shouldn't we mention the ETK case in this one? Robofish (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a long debate about this at ANI [8] and some people did not want to mention or link to the names at all. Personally I think this is too extreme, but do accept that there needs to be evidence of BLP notability, which at the moment there is not. The only notable aspect of ETK is that the names were published in the Irish media without any problems. Beyond that, it is routine tabloid gossip and would fail BLP without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

It is far more notable that the newspaper that wanted to publish ETK, the News of the World, has folded in July 2011 following the Scotland Yard investigation over the phone hacking affair.[9] The paper really went too far on this one, and the UK government was furious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Threlfall. 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/20160223024811/http://www2.mmu.ac.uk/about/honorary-graduates/honorands-2013/ to http://www2.mmu.ac.uk/about/honorary-graduates/honorands-2013/

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) 14:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Spooks?

Why is his part of Kieth Moran in Spooks not detailed? 51.219.143.148 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)