Talk:Stephen Crabb

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stephen Crabb. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Petition on 38 degrees[edit]

In the "ESA vote controversy", there is the following sentence "a 38degrees petition was launched demanding that Crabb resign his post as patron of Mencap Pembrokeshire.", referenced with a link to the petition. I removed this, saying that the petition was not a secondary source but this was reverted by Jimmy3d0 who said that it was in fact a secondary source. Could you explain why you think this is a secondary source? Surely the secondary source would be a newspaper or news site reporting the petition? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The same goes for a source used to support the same sentence, which is a personal blog. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The "petition" is intrinsically a blog - thus not a reliable source for any claims. Anyone at all can start such a petition, but that does not make the petition notable at all. Collect (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In the "Food banks" section, there is a claim that there was "some controversy" over Crabb's ESA vote, using the source of a letter in a local newspaper. Again I removed this, saying that is was not a reliable secondary source, but Jimmy3d0 reverted this, saying that it was a reliable secondary source and that it "has already been re-added by Wiki Admins before!" Can anyone else weigh in on whether a letter to a local newspaper is a reliable source for something like this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Cooking on a bootstrap" is a blog per se, alas. Collect (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
A letter to a newspaper is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Neither (aksed elsewhere) is a 38degrees petition. A newspaper report of a petition might be. A newpaper story or editorial would be. If @Jimmy3d0: asserts that a letter is a RS, then he needs to make an argument here pointing to the pertinent wikipedia policy supporting his assertion. He'll find there is none. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is also not a reliable source and so I have again removed this content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the Daily Mirror good enough for you? Jimmy3d0 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
As this is a living person we should avoid use of all tabloid newspapers for referencing. Keith D (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not a personal thing; it's a wikipedia policy. If you mean this story, then yes, sure, it's an RS. I do wonder about the extent to which "MP criticised" is appropriate content for the article; and the whole ESA section smells of recentism. Are we going to include constituent reactions to all of his votes? If not, what is so special about this reaction, other than that enough people didn't like it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that as it is now, the ESA section is a valid one and adequately referenced. A lot of people want to know about him and his views. The section has reflected his views on the ESA issue as well as including some local "colour" and so overall there's no problem with balance. He has one of the most controversial jobs in UK politics, a poisoned chalice perhaps. It is virtually certain that there will be huge controversy around his actions in the future and we should allow this to be reflected in the article about him. That his constituency building in H'west was graffiti'd with a message relating to welfare just a few days before his appointment as welfare minister is almost poetically ironic and tbh I feel that that in itself justifies its inclusion. 100% noteworthy. Boscaswell talk 19:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Boscaswell, although I am not sure why we are debating this under a different heading than the 38degrees one? Anyway, I agree with Boscaswell's comments that this is very relevant, notable and news worthy and the two events which both took place before Crabb was appointed as DWP sec (IE; the vandalizing of his Office in haverfordwest and the setting up of a Petition for him to resign as Mencap patron) which were both related to social security (now his job!) make this completely relevant and appropriate as part of this article. They will certainly add to the overall story for the many people who will now be researching him. KEEP Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, does anyone actually object to the BuzzFeed article being re-added as a ref for the 38degrees petition? I understand that alone it was not enough to hold up the content, but now that there are two refs that do fit the critieria I feel that the Buzzfeed ref would actually add texture for any passing researchers... [1] Thoughts? Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed has a really poor reputation (See [1] based on [2]) and I don't think we do ourselves a favour citing it if it is held in such low esteem. The Pew study is evidence which gives the appearance that Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jimmy3d0: whilst I appreciate that you've put a lot of work into the latest addition to the ESA section, re. the 38degrees petition etc, it's early days for that. Please bear WP:UNDUE in mind, mate. On one of the new refs you put up, it says that (I think it was) the Chairman of Mencap Pembs has asked for a meeting with Crabb, but that he is in favour of Crabb remaining patron. Also, while blogs can come up with a lot of interesting info that hasn't yet made it into mainstream (and sometimes never does), generally-speaking they're not considered to be sufficiently reliable sources for Wikipedia, most likely as they come from a non-neutral point of view. WP:NPOV Yes, I know, the Daily Mail... But. All the best. Boscaswell talk 09:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The 38 degrees petition bit is back in, I see. Anyone can start a petition, and it didn't have the desired effect. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Food bank[edit]

I have removed the food bank section. Whereas it is almost certainly the case that there is a controversy, or there are disgruntled & disappointed people, in connection with his apparant support for and lack of support for foodbanks ... per WP:BLP and WP:RS, we need good reliable sources before we insert this sort of section into an article. A blog post from a non-authoritative blog, and a letter to a regional paper do not suffice. The whole section hangs from the letter source, and so the whole section falls with it. If you want to readd the section you MUST have a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

For the purposes of *this* page, this was the section that as removed:
Crabb was trustee of Pembrokeshire foodbank charity, Pembrokeshire Action To Combat Hardship, based in his parliamentary constituency.[2] In a 2015 interview, Crabb said that the previous Labour Government was "far too relaxed about people taking on household debt. We are living with the consequences of that now, part of the manifestation of which is the greater use of foodbanks.”[3]
Boscaswell talk 19:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Section heading (CARE)[edit]

The section heading now reads "links with homophobic Christian group". I personally think they are a homophobic group and the Independent article has also described them as homophobic. However, (presumably) they would dispute that and so it is not for Wikipedia to state whether they are homophobic or not, especially in a section header. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that "homophobic" is an extremely charged word. I'd refer to WP:OUTRAGE and WP:RECENTISM in this case. If the news item is notable enough for inclusion then perhaps "fundamentalist" would be a better choice. Arkhangelsk185 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, the word is so charged. But it is also true that they are described as a "homophobic religious fundamentalist organisation" in an article in the Indie. The section currently says that CARE *allegedly* opposes LGBT rights legislation. The word allegedly is factually incorrect: their website makes it very clear that they consider marriage to be valid only between a man and a woman. .....
(re-checking the article) edit wars? It now is back to their description of gay people as "sexually broken". Good. That it has been changed back to that Boscaswell talk 16:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Stretched image[edit]

Anyone know why the infobox is vertically stretching the image (or is it just my browser?). By experiment, seems that |thumb create the same sort of mangling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It is also occurring in my browser [Google Chrome], perhaps it is the result of earlier vandalism? Arkhangelsk185 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I've asked at WP:VPT - [3]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Answer: WP:PURGE or - wht worked for me - Wikipedia:Bypass your cache#Cache_clearing_and_disabling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Register of Members Interests[edit]

When Crabbe submits his form to parliament, that's a primary source. When parliament publishes the Register of Members Interests, it constitutes a secondary source. Discuss. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the case only if the source discusses it with some analysis. Not a matter of counting the number of links in the chain Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Very good :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stephen Crabb. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Items Crabb claimed for[edit]

In this edit, User:Boscaswell:Boscaswell reverted my edit removing two items that Crabb had claimed for, saying "Reinstate example of items claimed as refurbishment expenses. Whole list would be WP:UNDUE. Especially important to have Crabb's claims detail, he is minister for the claims of millions." (I agree that the whole list would be WP:UNDUE)

The reference cited listed these two items in a long list of other items, so I am not sure why these two items are special in some way. The article did not make any comment on these two items, it merely listed them. I think this means that they are not notable. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I find the detail UNDUE and, tbh, I'm not happy with the work "reveal". There does not seem to be any question but that the expenses were legitimate - in contrast with duck-houses, etc - and there's no suggestion that he was ordered to repay. Morally, of course, they appear to stink especially in juxtaposition with the alleged 'flipping' and the fact that Crabb's mission will now be to starve the poor. But. We're not here to fight a political war. So, much as I might think he's a greedy opportunist shit, a "revelation" that an MP claimed for stuff that MPs can claim for is approaching the tendentious, and detailing a couple of items (as if to say SCANDAL: £500 on a quilt: How MP featherbedded his nest at the taxpayer's expense!!!) is well UNDUE. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Father's behaviour[edit]

I'm not sure how relevant Stephen Crabb's views on his father's mental state are. He told the Daily Mail in 2014 that, in retrospect, his father might have had some sort of mental illness or personality disorder. I put in a direct quote yesterday but User: Boscaswell removed it, saying it was too much detail. I think if Crabb was at the Foreign Office, that would be true. However, Stephen Crabb is in charge of the UK's welfare policy, and the big issue at the DWP is not pensions or Housing Benefit but disability benefits - and within that, the rise in claims for mental health issues.

Readers might wonder if Crabb's views on welfare are not just influenced by his and his mother's experience, but also his father's, who was described in the article as mostly unemployed (he's still alive, apparently).

Any thoughts?

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure; a couple of thoughts. Readers may wonder, but it is not our role to build a speculative connection between Crabb's fathers supposed mental health issues and Crabb's approach to his job. Next, WP:BLP applies to the extant father, and so we should have better source than Crabb's speculation before we make inferences about the said father. Where Crabb has mae a connection - as he appears to in ref 8, then all is well and good. Where he has not, we should hesitate to tread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree about being fair to the father - that's why my original bit made clear it was the SoS's stated opinion. Personally, I feel, if Crabb has talked about how his and his mother's experiences of welfare have shaped his views, it is of interest that Crabb thinks his father might have had problems that related to welfare entitlement too. However, that's perhaps more biographical than encyclopaedic (I prefer a biography, rather than something that reads like a CV). --Dr Greg Wood (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Events have now overtaken us! Daily Mail ran a story yesterday about Crabb senior, and the article now reflects that. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a Telegraph article that confirms that Crabb's father began claiming sickness benefits in 1972. I don't know much, but I do know about the politics of sickness benefits, and this is an important fact for an article on the man who is now the Welfare Secretary - plus Crabb volunteered the info about his mother's experience and cited it as shaping his opinion on welfare, so it's also reasonable to mention his father. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree here - the guidelines against using tabloid sources on BLPs are meant to prevent gossip and rumours being inserted and using tabloids as references. However here the material is from statements from Crabb, so this is not a worry, and is clearly relevant to his current job. We should not be overzealous about removing material just because it happens to be from a tabloid if it is not in dispute. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not generally usable for contentious claims about living persons - I note that the father is a non-notable person protected by WP:BLP and thus the comments about him as printed in the DM are a violation of policy. Sorry fellahs - the asides about his father are a no-go per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME as I find no assertion that the criminal attacks on the mother were ever prosecuted at all. By the way, the Wikilink used in this BLP for "invalidity benefit" applies to an act from 1995 -- a couple or three years after 1972. Collect (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

1) Nothing personal, Collect, but what you've written about the Invalidity Benefit link is something that exasperates me about some Wiki contributors. The Incapacity Benefit page linked to clearly does cover its forerunner, Invalidity Benefit, and it puts the earlier benefit in a broader historical context. The reason there isn't a good link to a source purely on Invalidity Benefit is that this benefit dates from the pre-internet age (Google ranks the Incapacity Benefit page highly though, if you search for Invalidity Benefit). But if you can find a better reference, please replace the one that's already there.

2) I can't accept that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source when you are talking about quotes from an interview with a Cabinet minister, freely given.

3) With the issue of the father, as I've said before, I agree he needs to be treated fairly; that's why I think his response - as reported in the Telegraph - to the claims made by his son is important. My view is: Crabb, a Cabinet minister, has said these things happened and anyone who wants to read about the current Welfare Secretary online will soon come across these comments about his childhood. Presenting them succinctly then giving the father's response seems to me to be the fairest way to address the issue...But, I do agree the claims are serious allegations. Is there someone who can give a higher opinion? Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

WRT the article linked on benefits - I read the first paragraph of that article - sorry that I did not read the section about prior benefits, but you should note that you can link to a particular section in an article, which would likely be a far better idea. As to quotes - the DM may not make up quotes but it does select quotes, and often (too often) selects quotes sans context to make a point. If you ask at WP:RS/N you will find that I give the most generous view of the DM for such matters, and some would simply remove it entirely from all BLPs. 12:22, 8 April 2016‎ Collect Collect (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, this is more evidence of what is wrong with Wikipedia: for every person who adds useful content, there are a dozen other people who sit on the sidelines tutting - let's have a bland Encyclopaedia written by know-nothing passive-aggressives! Yay! Dr Greg Wood (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV and WP:RS - our own opinions and what we know are not part of how articles must be written. Even if you like yours with oregano. Collect (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed and removed several other DM references from the article that are now verboten, apparently. Odd that they didn't seem to bother the Pharisees! Dr Greg Wood (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not every DM claim which could be a problem - but claims made by any source which impact living persons require strong reliable sourcing. The biggest problem in this article was the claim that a living named and non-notable person physically attacked another person, based on a "juicy quote" in a celebrity interview. And the DM is not the only source which likes to use the "juicy bits" from interviews, by the way. Collect (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Either you think the DM is acceptable to use as a source or you don't. You don't seem to know where the DM stands among UK newspapers either. It's middlebrow - it's only a 'tabloid' by virtue of its shape. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS is clear that the nature of the claim is what also must be considered. I point out that no one at WP:RS/N has defended its use for "celebrity gossip" as far as I can tell, and the claim that his father brutalizes his mom is in that vein, as the father is quite non-notable. WP:RS is not an "all or none" proposition. Collect (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see: "mom". Odd that you should be so concerned about the Daily Mail and Mr Crabb. Anyway, now, I think the article works better without the bit about claims of domestic abuse (and the father's denial) - it now looks to me to be rather unreliable as a story (he was younger than 8 at the time and it was at least 35 years ago, for starters). I don't doubt that Crabb said it though: the idea that the DM would misquote a Tory minister after an interview in such a way and that the minister wouldn't have it corrected is fanciful.Dr Greg Wood (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Employment of his wife[edit]

We seem to have lost the bit about him using some of his expenses to employ his wife. You'll recall that at the time of the MP expenses scandal, the fact that many MPs channeled expenses into their family by employing spouses was considered notable. I'm a little surprised and dismayed that the neutrally phrased fact that he employs his wife has been removed. Why has it been removed? And does anyone have objections to its return? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I personally don't think it is notable - the fact that it was considered notable doesn't mean that it still is, see WP:Recentism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I took it out - sorry if it was unwelcome. It was neutrally phrased IMO; I removed it primarily because I changed the heading from 'Expenses' to 'MPs' expenses scandal' and I didn't think it was all that relevant to 2009. Quite a lot of people, including MPs, employ family members - I'd say it's only relevant as a scandal when whoever is being discussed doesn't really employ them, they just claim for the expense, and there's no suggestion that Crabb did that. --Dr Greg Wood (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Saying she works for him could fit in with the bit about his good lady at the end, in Personal Life.

Sexting allegations[edit]

I've reverted the addition of the same text once again. I'm not necessarily averse to this being expanded, but this text isn't ready for live.

  • Contains vague sentences about Weinstein and other allegations, which do not directly relate to Crabb (WP:SYN)
  • Contains sentences not justified by their source (e.g. asserting that "The Labour Party" demanded something, whereas in fact all the source says is that a single Labour MP said this) (WP:V)
  • Contains sentences sourced only to poor tabloid sources such as The Sun (WP:RS)

I think the essential parts of this content that actually relate to Crabb are actually in the article already; perhaps the editors could engage here with what they feel is currently not covered, rather than repeatedly pasting in the same problematic text (overwriting the work of other editors on this). TSP (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the text twice since for the same reasons. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

content dispute[edit]

Please discuss proposed content here, bearing in mind guidelines regarding WP:BLP -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)