Talk:James Heappey

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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Removal of 2017 general election section[edit]

@EMBLYN: The sources seem quite numerous and The Herald (Glasgow) is a wp:reliable source. This is a biography, not a hagiography. All information good and bad gets reported. The only valid reason for removal is that Heappey did not say "why don't you fuck off back to Scotland" to a sixth-former girl? Did he or didn't he? Per wp:BRD please obtain consensus before removal. Jim1138 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jim1138.

I too think that EMBLYN's edits are inappropriate. For example, in this edit[1] Emblyn removed the whole section with the edit summary removal of poorly sourced factually inaccurate content unsuited to a biography of a living person. When reverted, Emblyn removed the section again,[2] with the edit summary Tabloid journalism sources inappropriate for biography of living person.

Both those edit summaries are untrue. In fact, the sources removed included both of Scotland's leading broadsheet newspapers (the Scotsman and The Herald), and the respected Holyrood magazine.

That is unusually robust sourcing, and no grounds for removal.

I note that User:EMBLYN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is is a newly-registered single-purpose account, whose only edits are to this article. I urge EMBLYN to gain more experience of editing Wikipedia by editing a wider range of topics, and to stop edit-warring. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The most reputable news source covering this story is the Guardian, which gives the quote as 'fuck off' rather than 'fuck off back to Scotland'. The same Guardian article contains a denial from Mr Heappey that he said 'fuck off back to Scotland'. This should be reflected in the wikipedia entry. Further, the opinions of Nicola Sturgeon and Tessa Munt are not relevant on this article, and should be included on their respective wikipedia entries. May I suggest the '2017 general election' is replaced with the following:

2017 general election During the 2017 general election, he was criticised for swearing at a sixth form student during a debate on the proposed second Scottish independence referendum at Millfield school in Street, Somerset. Heappey subsequently apologised to the student concerned, acknowledging that his comment, although intended as a joke, was inappropriate. He denied media reports that he told the teenager to “fuck off back to Scotland”. Trelawder (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC) — Trelawder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think this proposed wording is good - it has a more encyclopaedic tone and concentrates on his actions rather than the (predictable) reactions of political opponents. The Guardian report which could be referenced is here (it's not in the article at present) Neiltonks (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed changes.

Five sources assert that Heappey said 'fuck off back to Scotland'. (The Scotsman, Daily Mirror, Somerset Live, Holyrood Mag, and The Herald). The Scotsman and The Herald are Scotland's two leading broadsheet newspapers, and Holyrood mag is a highly-respected political magazine. There is no reason to count them as any less reputable than The Guardian.

Per the policy WP:WEIGHT, the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. In this case the article should reflect the majority of sources reporting 'fuck off back to Scotland', but note Heappey's denial. I have therefore edited the section[3] to note that most sources report the 'fuck off back to Scotland' claim, but noted The Guardian's report of Heappey's denial.

The responses of other politicians are relevant. Munt, as previous MP for Wells, has standing to comment on how she thinks an MP for the area should behave, and the comments by Davidson and Sturgeon because they are the leaders of the 2 biggest political parties in Scotland. Their decision to comment on the matter indicates the prominence of this story in Scotland. It would not be appropriate to move their comments to their own articles, because their interventions here are a major part of Heappey's story (two party leaders weigh in on backbench MP), but a trivial part of the career of Davidson and Sturgeon, or Munt.

Neiltonks claims that these are the (predictable) reactions of political opponents, but Davidson is a member of the same party as Heappey. It is important to include all three, to note the cross-party nature of the condemnation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Feel free to continue this discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Is there reason to doubt that Heappey said "Fuck off back to Scotland"? Jim1138 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy recommendation for page edit... The section on the 2017 election is very close to being libellous, as well as 'fake news'. The contentious points where it verges very heavily towards tabloid journalism are: 1 "In his apology, Heappey claimed that that the comment had been intended as a joke." - what credentials or authority does the author of this to question whether Heappey 'claimed' it as a joke or otherwise - facts must be reported not opinion. 2. Heappey asked pupils how they would vote in the proposed second Scottish independence referendum, and a Scottish girl said she would support independence.[22] - source misquoted, further potential libel!! If you look at Daily Mirror article, they note that the it's only claimed he asked the 6th form for voting intentions from another unconfirmed source. Autobot1392 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC) — Autobot1392 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's worrying that the entry referenced in this thread does not strike a bi-partisan tone and is unnecessarily derogatory. From a legal standpoint, there's a lot of hearsay and not enough counterbalance. The other party involved, the girl, has not commented and the apology has been accepted. There have also been no complaints made by either school girl, school friends, father, school or anyone else. Autobot1392 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC) — Autobot1392 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A few points in reply to Autobot1392:

Heappey claimed that that the comment had been intended as a joke. The source is the Guardian[4], which says that he apologised for telling a Scottish schoolgirl to “fuck off”. That much is uncontested. The Guardian report says he denied reports that he told the teenager to “fuck off back to Scotland”. I agree that nobody can judge his intentions either way, so we can only report his comment. Would some other word be better than "claimed"? How about "said"?
Heappey asked pupils how they would vote in the proposed second Scottish independence referendum, and a Scottish girl said she would support independence. This is supported by the Scotsman[5], The Daily Mirror[6], Somerset Live[7]. Those newspapers are evidently all happy with their source.
The girl has not been quoted directly by the media, but it is not clear either way whether she spoke to any of the journalists. However, the Guardian, Herald, Scotsman, Mirror, Somerset Live all reports that she raised the matter with her father (or her parents), who contacted the school. Several sources note apology, but I can find no source which says that the an apology has been accepted. Have I missed something?

Finally, please read the core policy WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's job is not to try to find some sort of non-partisan position; it is to follow the sources. Per WP:WEIGHT, the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The article does just that. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is libel, it would be the sources, not Wikipedia. All on the page is essentially stating "The Scotsman, Guardian, ... say". There is no original content here. Wikipedia is not making any accusations, just reporting on what RS states. If the RS retracts, then it would be prudent to reflect that here. Jim1138 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes needed[edit]

Over the last few days there has been a massive spike in page views of this article. From a long-term average of ~25 views per day, it shot up in the last few days to ~1000 a day, due to Heappey's involvement in a controversy.

Inevitably, that has brought a flurry of edits by IPs and new editors, all of which are so far single-purpose accounts. Unfortunately some of them have simply edit-warred to remove sourced content, so at my request the page has now been semi-protected.

The article would benefit from being watched by more experienced editors, so I have made an identically-worded request for watchers at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom [8], WikiProject Somerset [9] and WikiProject Scotland [10].

I hope that more eyes will help to ensure that the article conforms with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Honours" Section[edit]

In June 2020 this page was updated to include a section relating to Heappey's Military Honours. This revision was suggested by an IP user who has since not made any further contributions. The "Honours" section lacks any references and I think it's continued presence on this page should require that citations be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono1011 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Matthew Heappey" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Matthew Heappey has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 8 § Matthew Heappey until a consensus is reached. John Womble (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]