Talk:Kenny MacAskill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFC for the condensed version[edit]

Dispute over whether the article should redact and distort virtually all information and reaction to a local politician's sole action that boosted them to (inter)national attention. —Simon Dodd (via posting script) 13:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not framed in a neutral way, it should be rewritten. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a 'local' politician, Simon? You're talking as if MacAskill was the Deputy Mayor of a town of 5000 people. Sofia9 (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should also go in the biography section as that is what this article is. The question is also very POV framed and should be rewritten. Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth reiterating what I just posted above, since you raised the same question there. I'm not saying that before this incident MacAskill was no more notable than a parish councillor. This isn't AFD. It is, however, abundantly clear that this incident is going to dominate his article, at least until he does something equally notorious. As COATRACK puts it (the real one, not the one Rob seems to imagine exists), "[a]n article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. A reader is not misled by the focus on the moon trip." (Cf. WP:UNDUE ("Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (emphasis added)); in terms, UNDUE covers viewpoint, but the same neutrality-through-proportionality principle has broader reach.)- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was trimmed of excessive content that added nothing of value to it, no viewpoints were removed, in the newer version there was still the majority of content about this magrahi incident. It is nornal in the excitement on an initial event that excessive detail gets added by all and sundry, in the likeness of a newspaper, the editing that occured simply removed this excessive detail.Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No more notable than a parish councillor" is frankly insulting. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To who? Not to parish councilors: they aren't notable, at least qua parish councilors. Not to MacAskill, either, since I said that I wasn't suggesting he was no more notable than a parish councilor before this event.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, if you're conceding that he is more than a councillor, then your whole argument about localism is an irrelevance, so we can move on from that. The question to my mind is the relative weight that should be given to the most significant features of MacAskill's political career - his influence on the political journey of the SNP as a Sillars-supporting Fundamentalist who converted to gradualism, his decision to drop his bid for the deputy leadership in 2004, his unexpected victory in Edinburgh East in 2007, his very extensive proposals for penal and drinking laws that I set out earlier, and last but not least the Lockerbie decision. Lockerbie is the single biggest of those - but it does not outweigh all the others as overwhelmingly as your favoured version of this 'biography' would have us believe. Sofia9 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the slimmed down version is more relevant to MaacAskill. If you want to read about Megrahi, go to the Megraahi article...simple! (as the meercat says) --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about Megrahi, CF. The removed material - the whitewash you are participating in - is about MacAskill's decision and the reaction to it, not to Megrahi. It has no more place in the Megrahi article, where it will ultimately be removed using the same spurious reasoning now being advanced to justify removing it from this article. It is becoming more and more clear that we're going to have to go down the route of a subarticle.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt (and hope) that isn't really your opinion, because it's fatuous. Far better that you're trying to justify an untenable position with what's to hand than that you really believe something like that: What was removed is absolutely relevant and apt, and should not have been removed. While excessive detail may often be added, and while some detail could certainly be removed here, it is not true that the reactions of the victims is excessive detail, or that distorting and misrepresenting the reaction to the decision (which, intended or not, is what John's version does), is "removing excessive detail."
If you are unwilling to wait on broader community input before truncating the article (which, as a side note to the editors who reverted to John's version, is highly inappropriate and demonstrates appallingly bad faith, by the way), As I see it, we have two options. Either we treat this material properly in this article, or we create a subarticle and cover the material there with a "see [subarticle] link in MacAskill's article. What is not an option, however, is for a tiny clique of MacAskil partisans to whitewash this incident, something that those same editors have demonstrated persistent effort to do ever since the decision. I don't think that a subarticle is appropriate, but if compromising on that point is the only way editors will accept an accurate portrayal of the event, so be it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the slimmed down version is a lot better, all the important detail is still there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that Simon, with his strong feelings about this incident would be better writing a specific article about this release and a link to it would be the way to go. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subarticle[edit]

It's become apparent that we're going to have to take the subarticle road. I think that's unfortunate, but if that's where we have ended up, so be it. I will create it and modify the section in this article accordingly.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the section you refer to, it won't require any modification. Just make your page and give a link to it, easy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Is Simon going to write a new sub-article every time he loses an argument?--Cyber Fox (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost plenty on wikipedia and as yet I have never tried this subpage thing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the new page Release_of_Abdelbaset_Al_Megrahi I have changed the link in this article to direct there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also scrubbed the section in this article to be a very, very terse summary of the main article. That serves your purported concerns of giving as little coverage as possible to the decision, and serves my concerns by ensuring that people will click through to the subarticle.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for Simon to strip out all of the content regarding magrahi and it is also unnecessary, and a bit wikipedia pointy.I have reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, it's not our business to ensure as many people as possible click through to Simon's sub-article. It's our business to write a suitable biography. Sofia9 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Question[edit]

The RFC question, in part, asks "whether [a Wikipedia article]... should... distort ... information..."

Of course, "distorting information" is not one of the goals of Wikipedia, so I wonder why an RFC question posed in good faith would ever be phrased in this way. I wonder if there is something else going on here that is not being mentioned?

Meanwhile, questions about a "sole action that boosted [someone] to [international] attention" would seem to be addressed under WP:BLP1E.

I get am getting the sense of a content dispute that is not at all being addressed in an appropriate fashion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did suggest that the RFC question is was framed in a POV way, thanks for commenting, but the situation has been difused by a user creating a specific article to keep all the opinions regarding the release of magrahi in. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight[edit]

I think the above mentioned section is running afoul of undue weight. Mentioning the political reaction is fine, but the personal family reactions is a little much. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, I gather you mean this page Release_of_Abdelbaset_Al_Megrahi, I had a bit of a look and it is a bit excessive, I agree with you. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem with Simon's new article is the novel-length quote he's suddenly added from the newspaper columnist David Aaronovitch. I'll be intrigued to see how he thinks he can justify that. Sofia9 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page was created out of pique and that is reflected in the new article. I recommend leaving him to it for a while and see what he makes of that page. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This drama filled comment is from the lede.... MacAskill's decision attracted immense news coverage, along with furious anger from some quarters and praise from others. very nice. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In England what happened was that the press tried to use this release as a way (yet another) to attack Gordon Brown and tried to say he was behind it and that he should comment and it didn't really get support, apart from that no one was really bothered. I imagine if as Simon says that there was furious anger somewhere that there was probably demonstrations and marches and things like that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to take an independent look at this for WP:BLP concerns. I strongly concur that the older version gave significantly undue weight to the Al Megrahi release. The current version [1] appears more appropriate both in terms of relative length and also focus on Mr MacAskill's role, and the responses to that, rather than the release itself.
I, personally, tend to frown on single event articles such as Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. I feel they suffer badly from recentism and fail to give the subject due perspective, as a good encyclopaedia article should. Instead, the incident should be suitably covered in the article about Al Megrahi himself and also in the multitude of Lockerbie bombing related articles. Sadly, however, such articles are now the norm and its certainly better there than here. Rockpocket 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Executive[edit]

In the British Press they are not even mentioning this MacAskill anymore? They are talking about the decision being taken by the Scottish Executive? I had a look and found this..

The Scottish Government operates on the basis of collective responsiblity. This means that all decisions reached by Ministers, individually or collectively, are binding on all members of the Government. The Guide to Collective Decision Making details the arrangements for supporting collective decision making by Ministers.

Is MacAskill being given too much responsibility for this decision when all he did was sign it off? Any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too right, it was Salmond's decision if it was anybody's but it is ultimately the Scottish government's...not MacAskill's or anyone else's. Just another reason for not adding further propaganda to the MacAskill article. --Cyber Fox (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should draft something to go in this article that reflects this collective decision making element within the Goverment in Scotland. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have reliable sources quoting MacAskill as taking sole responsibility (e.g. [2][3]), we shouldn't even be contemplating a change without a reliable source that unambiguously says that it was a collective decision. Even a reliable source that seems to imply that the "Scottish executive" took the decision should be scrutinized carefully: are they actually claiming that the Scottish executive made the decision collectively? Or is what reads as a surprising and novel claim, on closer inspection, merely sloppy, imprecise writing? I suspect the latter. What does the statute say? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is something to have a look round for, today a fair bit of information is being, or has been released over the details of who did what, so it is just something I considered after listening to recent reports on the matter on the british tv failing to mention McAskill by name and instead refering to the decision taken by the Scottish executive. Lets see what new info comes out regarding the decision today, or now..Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a bit more, saying McAskill refused the prisoner transfer option [[4]] Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Also here [[5]] some of the early stuff from the release by the british, there is also going to be a release from the scottish side. A bit more [[6]].. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the authority for compassionate release statutory or common-law? If the former, what does the statute say about who has the authority to grant a release? If the latter, what does the leading case say about the same? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure, I would have to guess without further investigation, perhaps our Scottish friends could help us out here? I will also do some digging to see what I can find about the legal issues, you are the legal expert Peter, I would quess that it would be the justice minister with a caveat that any decision taken by him is the collective responsibility of the Executive.Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize, by the way, that there's something of an original research problem inherent in going off and checking the statute book (my assumption is that in this day and age, that sort of authority--or at least the protocol for its exercise--will be codified somewhere). To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we insert original research into the article. I'm suggesting that we do a bit of original research as deep background: if we understand the legal framework, we will be better able to judge the question I raised in my comment above, viz., is a story that assigns the decision to "the Scottish government" or "the Scottish executive" actually claiming that the Scottish executive made the decision collectively, or are they using a shorthand, or could it just be imprecise writing?
It seems to me that reference to an action made by an individual member of the the government as an action "by the government" is a fairly common shorthand, without implying any kind of collective action. Even when there is, formally, collective responsibility, collective action is not necessarily implied, and for purposes of writing an encyclopædia, we should focus on reality rather than formalist contrivances. Salmond's government may (or may not) ultimately bear responsibility for the decision in a moral sense, but if it was MacAskill's decision to make, and he made it alone, without referring the issue to a collective decisionmaking body (formal vel non) we should refer to his having made the decision, rather than the "Scottish government" in the abstract.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where it is known that a prisoner is so ill that he (she) will die in custody it has been our practice to release the prisoner, when appropriate, so that he may die in the comfort of his family. This used to be done under the Royal Prerogative. More recently an Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed unanimously, has enshrined this ancient practice in statute law and imposed the duty of deciding the issue on the Minister for Justice. In the last ten years twenty seven prisoners have been released on compassionate grounds to die at home. This is what happened to Megrahi.[7] --Cyber Fox (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. As I said, one would expect it to be codified, in substance or at least process. So let's see the statute. (I shall ignore the self-righteous thrusting at strawmen at the link you provided). The Scottish Parliament has passed many statutes; which one is Hamilton referring to?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what's been written in the press. The reporting of MacAskill's initial statement in the Telegraph tells us that he said this: "Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds." And Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 does indeed do so. But it would have been a damn clever trick of the Scottish Parliament to have passed that act, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent on-point pronouncement by the Scottish Parliament appears to be the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act of 2001, which appears to imply that the Westminster Crime (Sentences) Act of 1997 still governs in Scotland. [Added: in relevant part, the 1997 act seems essentially identical to, but supersedes to the extent it differs from, the 1993 act Angus mentions above.] If that is so, §30 of that act ("Power to release life prisoners on compassionate grounds") provides that "[t]he Secretary of State may at any time release a life prisoner on licence if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the prisoner’s release on compassionate grounds. ... Before releasing a life prisoner ..., the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board, unless the circumstances are such as to render such consultation impracticable." If that text governs, I would think that release is a discretionary power of the Justice Secretary and not a collective function of the Scottish government. That, however, seems to contradict (or at least gloss) Hamilton's statement that "an Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed unanimously, has enshrined this ancient practice in statute law and imposed the duty of deciding the issue on the Minister for Justice" (note the cute framing of the issue: it imposes the duty rather than reposing the power). A QC presumably knows. So I may be off-base. Which statute does Hamilton have in mind?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the original question is complete nonsense. The decision was taken solely by MacAskill in his quasi-judicial role (similar to how Jack Straw makes judicial decisions in England and Wales). All that Salmond has done is to publicly voice his support for the man he appointed and the decision he has made. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was framed after tv reports started refering to the decision being one that the scots executive was responsible for.Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that statute law, I like it, built in compassion, doesn't even specify on what compassionate grounds, although I suppose this has been tested in the courts, and seems to be imminent death, terminal illness sort of level. Does anyone know if any cases have been rejected? What I am trying to quantify in this is actually how much responsibility did McAskill have in the decision? I was looking at undue weight to a living person, not in this article but the new one, as MacAskill in mentioned 24 times in the body of that article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has total responsibility if the 1997 act governs. It is phrased as an entirely discretionary power on his part (which is why Hamilton's observation falls short): he "may at any time release a life prisoner on licence if he is satisfied" (emphases added). Even if recent usage is to follow the parole board's recommendation, the power wouldn't be any less discretionary for it. Consider that the President of the United States rarely exercises his veto power relative to the volume of bills presented to him, but the power does not atrophy through disuse. If MacAskill had any power to say "no," the responsibility for saying "yes" is his. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a s..t job but someone's got to do it. I am suggesting that he had no option except to say no, but I am moving towards OR..Lets see how it all unfolds. Thanks for all the comments regarding this. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... You're saying that his only choice other than saying "yes" was to say "no"? What's your point? Does the binary nature of the choice somehow vitiate his choice to say yes? It seems to me that what you're looking for is a way to represent MacAskill's discretionary authority as a hobson's choice, or at least a morton's fork. It strikes me as neither. Saying no was a perfectly valid outcome within the scope of his authority. Indeed, call me crazy, but I would think that "no" would be the default, that there is a rebuttable presumption against releasing convicted mass murderers.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to close but...I have made my point clearly, it is that MacAskill was actually only following procedure and had little choice in the matter, and that to blame him for the release is a bit much. I would also say that yes is the default in similar situations of imminent death for mass murderers or anyone, there is no mention of any difference in the law of compassion from a mass murderer or a thief, compassion is compassion full stop. From MacAskills position, he was asked for compassion and the conditions were met and he took advice from doctors and the parole board and signed the release. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Total rot. Of course it's true that some statutes assign an officer of the state duties that are purely ministerial, i.e. one done "without the exercise of discretion or judgment," State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), when predefined conditions are satisfied. Since a statute can only act through an individual, it says (in effect): "You over there! If X then do Y." This, however, is not such a statute. This statute confers discretionary authority on MacAskill: he may, under certain conditions, choose to release prisoner meeting certain conditions. It is up to him. The fact that the prisoner meets those preconditions is a necessary condition for release, not a sufficient one. MacAskill was under no obligation to release anyone, let alone Megrahi. It was his decision. "No choice in the matter"? He had all the choice in the world. He could have said no. Should have said no.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, the recent precedents in Scotland suggest that if the conditions for compassionate release are met, compassionate release is always granted, whatever the severity of the prisoner's offence. So you're quite wrong to suggest the default presumption in these circumstances would be 'no' to release - the opposite is the case. However, it's true to say MacAskill had the discretionary power to ignore those very clear precedents, and perhaps another Justice Secretary would have done so (personally I doubt it, but it's possible). It's also true to say that legally it was MacAskill's decision and MacAskill's alone - quasi-judicial decisions by ministers are individual, not collective. Although of course any minister can be replaced at any time by the First Minister, so in practice he's unlikely to come to a decision that his colleagues cannot accept. Sofia9 (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking normatively not positively; I'll take your word for what has, positively-speaking, actually taken place in Scotland, but "I would think that 'no' would be the default, that there is a rebuttable presumption against releasing convicted mass murderers." Just to clarify. Meanwhile, I think we're inagreement that the decision was MacAskill's to make and that he carries sole responsibility for his choice.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit on release section[edit]

I've taken another run at pruning the release section. Here's a dif. I have two extra concerns to add.

(1) I don't understand why the article needs to state that the Parliament was previously recalled for deaths of Dewar and Bowes-Lyon, and my preference would be to remove it. When I've removed it before it's been put back in, but it's hard to tell if that's because other editors are truly attached to this language or if it's just an optical illusion, that edit being caught up in other edits and reversions. Given that ambiguity, since my goal was to minimize the possibility of objection to this copyedit, I've left it in place for now. (I have, however, substituted "occasioned" for "necessitated"; "prompted" would work, too, but using "necessitated" to refer to things that are not actually necessary---being, perhaps, merely advisable or nice---is the kind of sloppy, imprecise use of English that we should leave to journalists.)

(2) I'm troubled by the language "Ian Galloway and Mario Conti, representatives of the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church respectively, also spoke in favour of the release." Bishop Conti made it very clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity, and I'm worried that if we refer to him as a "representative[] of" the Church, readers may infer that he was speaking qua a representative of the Church, i.e. that while the words and voice were his, the message itself was on behalf of the Church. That's inaccurate and should be changed.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to me looks and reads a lot poorer, especially this.. Tory leader David Cameron criticized the decision,[11][12][13][14][15]

Whenever I see a long list of cites I see POV. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Of course the tory leader is going to speak against anything that he thinks is going to attack the labour gov, and this is again coatracking opinionated opinion on the article,, and with 5 citations to support the biased opinions, very poor edit, imo Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Can you not enoy this sort of opinionated additions in your article? Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unexamined assumptions aren't a sound basis for evaluating edits, Rob. The citations are the same ones that were already in the article; the only difference is that the footnotes have been grouped at the end of the passage they support, rather than being given individually for each clause. There aren't five footnotes for Cameron's opinion; there is one. I do agree that these refs should be collapsed into a single footnote, however.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, grousing about how something is "opinionated opinion" isn't going to provide much credibility for your ability to critique wording choices.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edid c..

Camerons opinionated opinion is worthless here. collapsed or uncollapsed, this is not a list of opinionated comments this is the bio of MacAskill , you are looking for your article if you are looking for a list of opinionated comments Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll tell you what. I have no particular attachment to citing Cameron's reaction, so I've removed it. I must note for future reference, however, that while I don't object to the result, your position is remarkably tenuous. It's merely ironic that you're criticizing language choices in remarkably poor language. It's more problematic that you simply assumed that the citations pertained to Cameron instead of, you know, looking. But the gossamer reasoning for excluding Cameron's reaction portends ill. You are, of course, correct that a politician is likely to criticize a decision when there is hay to be made from doing so. (I have in my mind a picture of the "discovery" window from the old Civilization games: "Congratulations, you have discovered partisanship!") If the existence of partisan incentive justifies removing Cameron's reaction, however, a fortiori it justifies removing Gray's reaction: he, after all, has a far stronger incentive to criticize MacAskill than Cameron. It also justifies removing Salmon's reaction, because he too has a partisan incentive (viz. to support a minister he appointed; if your appointee goes off the reservation, you look a little foolish for appointing him, so a good tactic is to quickly change the perimeter of the reservation and go stand next to him). In fact, if partisan incentive is grounds for exclusion, the only reactions that should be covered are the clergy and the Americans, because they're the only ones who are disinterested! But while disinterest has much to recommend it as an exclusion criteria, it would render the task of building the encyclopædia all-but impossible.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we already had a balanced reflection of opinion, I feel that scotish ministers are more relevent to comments and it was balanced as it was, yes, I would remove anyone that could be shown to be either opiniopated or irrelevent. I still feel that if you want to alter anything in this section you would be better reverting to the stable version and dealing with your issues one by one. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm...Dudgeon? I want to revert to the worked on edit but I am resisting and it is good you have removed the cameron thing, I am going to leave it and let it be and see how it settles, anything opinionated is imo not good, I am prepared to leave it to you to find a neutral expression that reflects the response in the usa as I am not there.. i'll look at it later, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say "highly critical," but we already use that in the same paragraph to describe Mueller's letter; that kind of repetition is ugly and, accordingly, deprecated. So an alternative is needed, and "high dudgeon" works fine.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't simon, I as an english bred person do not as yet know what it means, later I will google it. I would suggest that if you really want to edit or change small phrases or terms in the section that it would be better it you reverted it back to the stable version and discussed your changes here, I am prepared to listen to your comments individually would be good instead of altering the whole thing, and there are already two alterations to your original edit. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The niggardly vocabulary of one editor shouldn't confine the scope of the encyclopædia, or any article in it. And for God's sake, man - if your reaction on hitting the outer limits of your vocabulary is to demand that the entire forest beyond must be felled, rather than welcoming it as an opportunity to learn, that is utterly shameful. Just when did the idea that everything must be flattened to a dull mediocrity escape from Harrison Bergeron and The Fountainhead into respectability? The most important characteristic of the educated mind is to not be entirely flummoxed when something new washes over the deck. Our target audience is the reasonably intelligent layman. Such a person will either know the term, which is in common use, or enjoy the opportunity to learn it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This comment you have added.... In the United States, where 180 of the 270 victims came from, the decision met with broad hostility. How was this so called broad hostility portayed? were there any demonstrations? Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am reticent to revert your edit I do feel that the article is not improved by it, in fact, worsened, and I personally would prefer it if you brought any issues you have with it, one by one to the talk page, where we can discuss them, regards Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Demonstrations"? Good lord, how old are you? Demonstrations are for people with more free time than sense, which is why they are a characteristic tool of students and the left. They are not a barometer of public opinion to anyone except the kind of people who enjoy marching and shouting a lot.
In any event, your reply is really more than one should have to bear. For one thing, you were part of the clique that demanded we truncate the section, including removing the material that supported the statement you now complain is unsupported. As bad faith gaming goes, that takes some nerve, although sadly it's not unprecedented. For another, where was this newfound solicitousness for collegiality ("I personally would prefer it if you brought any issues you have with it, one by one to the talk page, where we can discuss them") when John was making changes en masse? With incentives so unhidden, your request is made in just incredibly poor faith. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, I am here to talk about each and every one of your issues. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see why after extensive discussion here that you have again reverted to your edit without discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I suggest you stop attacking the article like this, talk about it, more people will come soon. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because (1) I am not going to discuss a copyedit word-by-word. That's unheard of! There may be no deadline, but I don't have all year. (2) Your objections are, in any event, ill-taken. Your first complaint about Cameron was the result of inattentive reading, and your second the result of your own poor vocabulary. Neither are sound bases for critique, and the first really raises some question about just how closely you actually read the changes. Your more general objection (that the wording is "worse") is simply too amorphous to address. And (3) for you to suddenly turn around and demand collegiality over a minor copyedit after having been perfectly happy with far larger and more substantive changes en masse is just preposterous.
If you have specific, serious objections to raise, why don't YOU raise them here? I've already demonstrated good faith by addressing the concerns you raised about Cameron and the string cite; why don't you try showing some good faith by saying exactly what you don't like about the edit other than the fact that I performed it?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob's specific concerns with and objections to the new section wording[edit]

[TBA]

This could go[edit]

This could go, in the balance, this guy left politics in 2003 and his opinion is not very valuable, any comment..

Former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish described Robert Mueller's attack on the decision as 'out of order' saying it was "an unfair slur on the Scots justice system".[17]

in or out? I am for out. As not notable opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely in. It is required for balance as it was the most high profile rebuttal of Robert Mueller's letter and was very widely reported. The reason any meaningful rebuttal was only ever going to come from a former First Minister is that neither MacAskill nor the rest of the current administration can be seen to be attacking a senior American official directly. Incidentally, Henry McLeish is still very much a public figure - he chaired the Scottish Government's recent review into the prison system. Sofia9 (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Would another editor mind reverting this? Reverting vandalism is not a revert for purposes of the three revert rule, but I don't know that everyone else editing this page knows that, and don't want to prompt an unnecessary rejected report.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you real? Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunalely Rob, he most certainly and unequivocally is! --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"High dudgeon"[edit]

I appreciate that it is equally legitimate to write Wikipedia articles in either British English or American English, so I can't say definitively that the inclusion of this phrase in an encyclopedic article is wrong, but what I can say is that to British eyes it looks utterly ridiculous - in fact when I saw it my first reaction was that it must be vandalism. Can anyone (other than Simon) help us on whether it looks more 'natural' to American eyes? Sofia9 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree Sofia, utterly ridiculous! --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joe Biden has caught hell the past couple of weeks ... [over comments about Russia]. Moscow officialdom has responded in high dudgeon...." Steve Sestanovich, What Biden Should Have Said, in the Wasington Post, August 6, 2009, [8]. "With the city threatening layoffs and the state crushed under its own massive deficit, there is high dudgeon over anything that might appear to be frivolous, particularly to those about to take a hit." Cathleen Decker, Asking for money when times are tough, in the L.A. Times, July 12, 2009, [9] "The prospect ... has day-care staff andparents who use the South Holland center in high dudgeon." Matthew Walberg, Liquor store proposal angers day-care officials, parents, in the Chicago Tribune, January 24, 2008, [10]. "Bolivians [are] in High Dudgeon Over [a] Soccer Ban." Simon Romero, s.v., in the N.Y. Times, June 17, 2007, [11]. "In June, the [New York] Times was in high dudgeon -- it knows no other degree of dudgeon -- about the Supreme Court's refusal to affirm a far-reaching government power to suppress political speech." George F. Will, Sauce for the Times, in the Washington Post, September 26, 2007, [12]. Need I go on? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we all starting writng articles in such terms, most of the readers would spend half their time consulting a dictionary. Apply a little common sense my jolly good chappy! --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, Simon, but my remaining question would be whether it's not more advisable to avoid such blatant Americanisms in an article about a British politician - eg. if I used the British spelling of the word 'colour' in the biography of an American person, I imagine it would be immediately reversed for the sake of consistency with the rest of the article. Once this controversy dies away you can almost guarantee that the vast bulk of contributors to this article are going to be writing in British English, so a sudden burst of Americanisms in one particular section is going to look a bit odd. Sofia9 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was an American phrase? See, e.g., Carl Mortished, Can we make China quit the opium of the gases? in The Times, July 7th 2009 ("Beijing was in high dudgeon last week") [13]; William Keegan, Old ladies should stay off high horses in The Guardian, November 6th 2005 ("[t]he charge certainly produced high dudgeon at the Bank") [14]; Claire Middleton, Hockey: Substitute Wilkinson hits three in The Telegraph, December 16th 2001 ("[There] was drama and high dudgeon in approximately equal measure yesterday as Guildford and Reading snatched unexpected victories") [15]; Stephen Goodwin, Inside Parliament: High dudgeon turns to low farce in The Independent, July 9th 1993 ("A mass walk-out by Scottish opposition MPs yesterday demonstrated once again that such Commons protests seldom have the impact of dignified high dudgeon that the instigators intend") [16]. There is a difference, Sophia, between "I don't know that phrase" and "that isn't a phrase in British English." More often than not, a speaker using latter means the former.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below for my response. Sofia9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • It should certainly be replaced by a more common expression – I for one had to look it up. I'm not advocating tuning down our articles to simple English, but in this case there is no reason to insist on that rather archaic idiom (although I'll be sure to use it in personal correspondence in the future :) Amalthea 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking it up is the correct response when one encounters something one does not know. As I said in my comment above (16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)), it is never an acceptable response to bemoan the material (still less its authors) for shortcomings in one's own vocabulary. Our target audience is the reasonably intelligent layman; such a person will either know the term, which is in fairly common use, or welcome the opportunity to learn it. Only schoolchildren - in fact or at heart - resent being asked to learn, and one must wonder, in any event, why someone who was unwilling to learn would be reading an encyclopædia in the first place. We should not flatten language into dull mediocrity merely to coddle those too lazy or too stupid to look up a word encountered for the first time.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, I was in point of fact fully familiar with the expression, which from what I can gather put me at a considerable advantage over both Amalthea and Cyber Fox who both apparently had to look it up. A term can still be an Americanism if it exists in British English - ie. it can be considered archaic in the UK while still in common usage in America (I believe 'fall' in the sense of 'autumn' would be an example of that). But if you're telling me that's not the case, and that there is in fact no difference whatever between the usage of the phrase in the two countries, then it most certainly should be removed, because in the UK it would be regarded as a totally unsuitable phrase for an article of this sort. PS - Perhaps 'Sophia' is the American spelling of 'Sofia', Syemon? Sofia9 (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would think it unlikely when you see what they did to Sulphur :-) Mannafredo (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sofia, Amalthea did exactly the right thing. I sometimes wonder how people with only a minimally-adequate vocabulary think that one is acquired - do they suppose that the heavens open and the Almighty sayeth unto a person "fiat lux"? It seems unbearably tautological to point out that we learn by learning. One accumulates a vocabulary through the process of discovering and correcting specific lexical ignorance. There's no shame in not knowing something, but it is plenty shameful if a person won't look it up.
At any rate, I make no claim about how commonly-used the term is in Britain. The examples given above establish only that it is used in Britain, which eviscerates any notion that educated British readers cannot reasonably be expected to know it. That it is extant yet might be considered archaic in Britain does not justify abjuring it here. If anything, a country whose legal culture has conducted a veritable purge against traditional latin, and whose schools are evidently failing on the most basic level if they are churning out students who haven't been imprinted with the instinct to learn and incorporate unfamiliar words they encounter, strikes me as being in desperate need of a lifeline to avoid the death of scads of the language.
Re the name confusion - sorry, one of my cats is called Sophia and I was on autopilot! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, apology accepted on the last point. I wasn't implying there was any shame in anyone needing to look a word up - I was simply suggesting that the fact that two highly literate people needed to do that is an illustration of just how archaic the phrase is. But the wider problem is not whether people know the phrase, it's the manner in which the phrase is generally used - as I started this discussion by pointing out, it just looks silly in an encyclopedic article. Mannafredo summed it up well in his edit summary - "what can be regarded as a colloquialism. Suitable for some forms of reporting, but probably not encyclopeadic any more." Sofia9 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with that as a general matter, but--with one minor alteration--I can live with Mannafredo's proposed substitution of "indignation" in this case. I'll go along to get along if "indignation" is an acceptable compromise to other editors?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I looked it up Sofia, simply to satisfy my own curiosity as to what the Oxford dictionary had to say about it. Needless to say, I was not impressed and as for this discussion, i am even less impressed at such a waste of space over such a non starter of an expression. Americanism or Brit speak, it makes no difference. --Cyber Fox (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it from a very well-educated American with an excellent vocabulary: this phrase is not in common usage, notwithstanding the fact that it has appeared in opinionated newspaper articles. The suggestion that ignorance of this particular phrase, or aversion to its use in a reference work, might constitute evidence of a "minimally-adequate vocabulary" (incorrect hyphenation, sic), is purely absurd, and, frankly, insulting (albeit in an inane sort of way which is easily dismissed). The same goes for other insulting language deployed by Simon in defense of using this ridiculous idiom in a WP article, and assaulting the intelligence of those who would be done a disservice by such usage, or those who object to its inclusion – see, e.g., "The niggardly vocabulary of one editor...", "...the result of your own poor vocabulary...", "...shortcomings in one's own vocabulary...", "...our target audience is the reasonably intelligent layman...", "Only schoolchildren...", "...dull mediocrity merely to coddle those too lazy or too stupid to look up a word...", "...educated British readers...", and, most especially, "...a country... whose schools are evidently failing on the most basic level..."
Simon, please see WP:DICK before embarking upon another trite crusade of this nature. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing coverage[edit]

Should we cover [17][18] in this article? Or just in the "release of" article? I'd be inclined to say that the connection to MacAskill is too remote on sources available today. The direct claims involve what was asked of Salmond. Still, there's an interesting turn of phrase - perhaps a slip of the tongue - in the story: Salmond says that "we based the al-Megrahi decision on a judicial basis alone” (emphasis added). The plural pronoun is interesting. Whether the decision was single or collective was discussed further up the talk page, and we established that the decision was MacAskill's to make. That leaves responsibility for it in his lap, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that he was pressured by Salmond. Nevertheless, the stories cited merely leave that conclusion hanging in the air as an implication, and we'd run into WP:SYN problems making the connection more explicit. I think we should leave this story out of the MacAskill article for now, but keep an eye on it and see what develops.

His comment here, claiming to be a much better Christian than those who have opposed the release, may demonstrate what a sanctimonious scumbag he is, but it doesn't provide useful content for the article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a significant new development in the story (ie the SNP or MacAskill personally is forced to resign from Government) then my inclination would be to leave it out. As you say, it may be more relevant to the release article. MacAskill's article is fine as it is, ie he made this high profile decision, which has provoked much debate (such as...) and that's it (at present). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, there is no significance whatever in the fact that Salmond used the word 'we'. I made the point to you earlier that it was MacAskill's decision in principle, but in practice he had to reach a decision that his colleagues - and most certainly the First Minister, who could fire him at any time - would accept. So there is a de facto collective responsibility for the decision, a fact that is reflected in the interchangeable language used by both politicians and the media - for instance the favourite form of words from the UK government is "this was a matter solely for the Scottish Government/Scottish ministers". I appreciate it's difficult to follow this story from several thousand miles away (even with the assistance of the internet), but if you had been able to you'd never have raised such a silly red herring.
So Simon "Agenda? Moi?" Dodd reckons the subject of this biography is a sanctimonious scumbag. I'd never dream of calling any human being a scumbag, but for our fix of sanctimony we need look no further than some of the drivel posted on this very discussion page by a certain right-wing American, not least in his eccentric attempts to portray the mainstream view (held by many lawyers, the official UN observer at the trial, and many families of the victims) that Megrahi may well be innocent as some kind of lunatic fringe theory. Sofia9 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coinneach MacAsgaill[edit]

The Gaelic origine of his name should be mentionned. They've done so in the German wikipedia. Seamusalba (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kenny MacAskill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenny MacAskill. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenny MacAskill. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kenny MacAskill. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenny_MacAskill&oldid=1209807817"