Talk:Operation Branchform

Timeline around Sturgeon and Murrell resignations

Hi DeFacto. You removed in this edit material about Sturgeon’s and Murrell’s resignations, saying the citation didn’t demonstrate relevance. I think I understand your point, but let me check. You are concerned we don’t give the impression that Sturgeon’s or Murrell’s resignations had anything to do with this investigation, as we don’t have citations supporting that. (It’s something some commentators have suggested, but I agree there’s no clear link.)

I’m fine with that. I wasn’t trying to imply any link. I just think for the reader to understand what’s going on, they need to understand that the investigation began when Sturgeon and Murrell were leader and chief exec, but that when the arrest came, Sturgeon and Murrell were not leader or chief exec. I was just trying to explain the timeline, not imply any relationship. Does that make sense? Happy to discuss appropriate wording to achieve that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, you understood my reason correctly. And I see your point about including it, but as this is BLP-related, I don't think it's for us to add that without strong RS support also unequivocally giving that relationship. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto, I have not explained myself well enough. I'm not suggesting we add anything suggesting a relationship between Operation Branchform and Sturgeon's and/or Murrell's resignations. I completely agree with you there. I do think we need some sort of text to explain to the reader that between the third paragraph and fourth paragraph, both Sturgeon's and Murrell's roles changed. I'm happy for you to suggest how we word that so as to avoid any suggestion of a relationship. But we need to say something, or else the reader will think that the Chief Executive of the SNP and husband of the First Minister has been arrested whereas actually the former Chief Executive of the SNP and husband of the former First Minister has been arrested. Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, I think the article already makes it clear that neither of them are now in the roles they had when the investigation started. Why elaborate, with the risk of leading readers? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

While I agree on the importance of not leading readers, I think the current text is confusing if you're not paying attention. Bondegezou (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Scandal category

Making another edit, I accidentally re-added the "Political scandals in Scotland" category that DeFacto had removed. Sorry, I had not intended the edit to do that.

However, I would like to argue that the category is applicable. We have multiple RS referring to this matter as a scandal, e.g. [1] and [2]. So, is it OK if we leave that category on? Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, this is still a current and ongoing investigation though and neither of those two sources (outside of their unreliable headlines and subheadlines) describe it as a scandal in their own voice. I suggest we wait until after the investigations and any other actions are completed and see how it is described then when it is all done and dusted. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I recognise your concern with the category and we've had similar discussions over other cases. I kind of feel you should probably just put the category up for deletion!

I don't think it's necessary to wait for an investigation to be completed. The investigation is not seeking to answer the question, "Is this a scandal?" This can be a scandal even if the police drop the investigation tomorrow.

What we should do is be careful with following what RS say and I take your point about unreliable headlines and subheadlines. So, here are some more examples. The Standard calls it a scandal in its own voice, in the main text of an article. The Telegraph also calls it a scandal in its own voice, outside of a headline, while also quoting political opponents using the word in other places. Not as strong, but this Guardian op ed calls it a scandal. Sky also call it a scandal in their own voice, in the main text of an article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you are only searching for sources that use that word, to support using that category. As it is such a subjective term, we surely need to search for sources that do not use it too, and try to gauge whether there is actually a consensus in the RSes, or whether it just depends on the bias of the individual journalists. I'm not sure what's wrong with waiting, and assuming innocence until proven guilty. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If some articles call it a scandal and some don't use the word, I take that to be sufficient support that it is a scandal. An article not using the word, absence of proof, is not proof of absence, that is it doesn't prove that the writer/publication would object to the word. If only a very small proportion of articles called it a scandal, then, sure, that would be an argument against. If there were articles explicitly saying it is not a scandal, ditto. I see a bunch of articles using "scandal", which satisfies WP:V as far as I can see. But I'm not wedded to this view: happy to read alternative analyses, hear input from more editors.

Looking at the very varied mix of other articles in the category, it is clear that what the editing community considers a scandal is not limited to things where someone is found guilty of a crime. As I said before, it can be a scandal even if the police drop the investigation tomorrow. That's why I don't see any need to wait. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Not forgetting that, per the title, this article is supposedly about a Police Scotland investigation. None of the sources call the investigation itself a scandal - do they?

Perhaps, after the investigation is complete, and it turns out that a scandal has been uncovered, we might then change the emphasis of the article and rename it as the "SNP finance scandal", or whatever, and then that category might be appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of relevant material

The deletion of large chunks of material from this entry by DeFacto is petty vandalism. "Wings Over Scotland is a blog" is not a legitimate reason for removal. Wings Over Scotland is not only a "reliable" source in terms of Operation Branchform, it is the ORIGINAL source.

In fact, Operation Branchform only exists at all because of Wings Over Scotland. This article in The Herald makes very clear the site's impact on the investigation (my emphases):

"With the influential Wings Over Scotland website leading outrage about a missing fortune, SNP treasurer Colin Beattie issued a statement intended to “quash rumours” and social media “conspiracies”, but which only generated more controversy [...] On 20 March 2021, three members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee quit at an NEC meeting after being refused access to the party’s books, including Frank Ross, then Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and two activists later to join Alex Salmond’s Alba party. A week later, after reading about the resignations on Wings Over Scotland, Mr Clerkin gave a statement to two officers from Police Scotland’s Financial Investigation Unit. At the start of April, Wings Over Scotland reported the police complaint had been lodged, generating more bad headlines for the SNP, at what was already a fevered time for the party [...] When Wings Over Scotland reported the loan’s existence in December, the SNP said it was a “personal contribution” by Mr Murrell."

The loan by Peter Murrell was almost universally noted by the media as being a Wings Over Scotland story: the BBC said "The loan was first reported by the Wings Over Scotland website", STV News said "The loan was first reported by the Wings over Scotland website", the Herald said "the loan was not widely reported until December after being flagged by the pro-independence Wings Over Scotland website", The Press & Journal said "Mr Murrell’s loan to the SNP came under scrutiny after it was reported on by pro-independence site Wings Over Scotland.", The Courier said "The loan was first reported by the pro-independence Wings Over Scotland website", The National said "Murrell’s loan was first reported by the Wings Over Scotland website.", and so on.

(You may note that none of them used the word "blog".)

It is an acknowledged fact, therefore, that Wings Over Scotland - not merely "a blog" but an extremely widely-read website written by a 30-year professional journalist, with both the site and the journalist considered sufficiently notable by Wikipedia to have their own separate entries - was instrumental not only in bringing the missing money to attention but also in actually instigating the police investigation and breaking several of the key facts.

You have absolutely no basis under Wiki's rules for removing these sections, particularly as you did not replace them with any other sources. But in any event WoS was the ORIGINAL source - in many cases breaking the news several months before any other media - which is the one that should always be cited on Wiki unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. There are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Lertreader (talk • contribs) 11:04:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anna Lertreader, Wings Over Scotland is a self-published source, and as such it is not considered to be a reliable source. Please read WP:SPS, particularly the last sentence, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Operation Branchform is not a living person, as you yourself note elsewhere on this page - "Not forgetting that, per the title, this article is supposedly about a Police Scotland investigation". The site reported verified, sourced facts about an organisation's accounts and finances, not a biography, and WP:SPS does not prohibit that. Anna Lertreader (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anna Lertreader, please explain why you think that first sentence is relevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anna Lertreader, rather than arguing the case for the use of that self-published source, which - even if you can persuade us that it passes the Wiki tests for reliability - would still require corroboration by main-stream reliable sources to give it due weight, why not just find and use main-stream reliable sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to exclude mention of a site which is widely acknowledged in the "main-stream reliable" media as the root of the entire investigation? WoS was the source of the original revelations, clearly it's not possible to go back in time and make the "main-stream reliable" media report things that they didn't report until months after WoS did, so WoS is the proper source to cite. If there are "better" sources then it is incumbent on YOU to find them to replace the valid ones you improperly removed. I am perfectly content with the sources I included and they contravene no rules. The "main-stream reliable" media also clearly considers WoS a valid source - repeatedly citing it over this matter - so it is most peculiar that you, an unnamed internet user, insist it isn't.

And the first sentence is pretty self-explanatory: you cited a rule about living people in defence of your deletions, which is not relevant or applicable because Operation Branchform - the subject of this page - is not a person. It's not exactly cryptic. Anna Lertreader (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anna Lertreader, from what we know, that source is not considered as reliable by Wikipedia as it is self-published. That means it should not be cited in any Wiki articles. Sure, if sources which are considered reliable take info from it, then they can be cited (but not the blog itself) as they are, in effect, taking responsibility for the info. However, care is needed where attribution is concerned - if the reliable source does not use its own voice, we need to attribute the info too.

And no, it's not my problem to fix your mistakes, Wiki puts the onus to provide reliable sources on the editor adding the info, per WP:PROVEIT.

As this article mentions living people it is, of course, with respect to info relating to those people, subject to the requirements of WP:BLP, including the section prohibiting the use of self-published sources such as the one in question here. It is explicit in its first sentence: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page....

If the info you wish to add is worthy of inclusion, it will certainly be fully covered by reliable sources without the need to resort to blogs. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I see there's no point attempting to reason with you - "the article mentions living people" LOL. It's about a police investigation and an organisation's accounts. To what "mistakes" do you refer? As I've previously noted, nothing I added breaks any Wikipedia rules. There is NOT, contrary to your statement above, any blanket ban on SPSes. There are circumstances where they're perfectly acceptable, and this is one of them. As you've made no effort to address my points, I'm done debating. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References