Talk:Vera Baird

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

Daily Mail etc[edit]

I have commented out this incident because I really don't think the Daily Mail can be considered a reliable source, especially if a Labour Party female politician is involved! Other sources don't seem to give the impression that charges wuld follow, and the Mail isn't specific about this claim. If this must be included, evidence must be drawn from reliable sources and be more neutral. Indeed, it is somewhat of a non-story considering no action (besides an apology from the BTP to Baird) followed. Computerjoe's talk 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is considered a perfectly reliable source. Being investigated for what is quite a significant offence is notable in itself. Also the dog fouling itself compounds any such notability further. I do agree the Daily Mail article could have more info, but luckily they've followed up on the story now so will add that source too. Also, talking of being based on evidence, well the apology has only been claimed by Baird, none of the statements by the police even hint that such an apology was issued.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail isn't considered a reliable source! I mentioned it in #wikipedia-en IRC, and the response was an immediate 'nuke it'. WP:RS says 'Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market.': Mail certainly isn't high-quality. WP:V says 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions'. The Mail is a tabloid and relies heavily on rumours and is fairly 'extremist'.
Much of the Daily Mail's claims are just someone's word against someone else's, and aren't verifiable. No action was taken, so I think it should be removed as any other claims are just speculative (such as what offence she was investigated for; 'sources' doesn't identify the sources and isn't reliable!). If it must be included, I suggest only information in the BBC article is included, as that is the most matter-of-fact and least speculative of all the sources. Also, the BBC is known for its fact-checking and is in the 'high-quality end of the market'. Computerjoe's talk 11:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but this just isn't true. That's absolutely no reason why one shouldn't use the Daily Mail as a source, especially considering they were the ones to break this story AND are the ones to examine it in such detail on multiple occasions. Of course you were quite correct to point out we needed sources in addition to the Daily Mail, but your suggestion of just using the bbc source would also be inappropriate as they have their biases too. I'll try and tweak things to make the section even better, but to be honest the article reads rather well now and is concise and well balanced. Anyway thanks for your input.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a poor source, and the Independent article has quite obviously used the Daily Mail as its sole source. When it comes to allegations, where it's someone's word against someone elses, I think we must be careful to respect WP:BLP. If you want to say anything, you can say 'The Daily Mail claimed that police sources said...'; that'd be reporting on the rumour and not treating it as fact (which can't be determined; because the Daily Mail hasn't specifically identified sources and is obviously biased. The BBC is nowhere near as biased!). The Telegraph[1] too stays on the side of caution, saying 'According to sources quoted in an article in the Daily Mail'. That's if it's even notable enough to deserve such a large mention in the article! Computerjoe's talk 23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN. Computerjoe's talk 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think that's sufficient, it's not just the Daily Mail making the claim but the named victim is making the exact same claim too in the second article. Therefore I've changed the article to reflect BOTH claims. I've also clarified Baird's claims of an apology somewhat as the way I'd written it suggested it was some wide ranging apology, when it would appears to be only in relation to the attitude of the officer. I still don't buy your comments about the Daily Mail - articles should be judged on their merits and they've clearly done a far more thorough investigation here than any other source.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As well as an article's merits, you must consider the publisher's. The tone of the Daily Mail article clearly represents their attitude ('Mrs Bossyboots') and their blatant bias dramatically reduces their reliability. I have changed the wording of the paragraph, but I still don't know if such a trivial incident (with no pursuant action) really should be mentioned. If need be, we could seek some third opinions at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Computerjoe's talk 21:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The dog fouling incident had been written in the most possible negative way and it had been given excessive weight. I have trimmed it to a more NPOV position. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Change it back, the you labour voting gimp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.246.30 (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A new account writes[edit]

Judge criticism: all the press articles make clear that the crit was retracted at the request of the Secretary of State and not because "the judge had followed the guidelines". They are guidelines not rules and the way they were used is open to approval or criticism. There is no room for the inference, present prior to this editing, that Mrs Baird was wrong. She was entitled to be critical.

expenses item. The online copies on the House of Commons website demonstrate that the receipt attached to this claim listed Xmas decorations with a number of other items. The claim shows that the contents of the receipt were, together, referred to as "miscellaneous" on the claim. The inference, present prior to this editing, that "miscellaneous" was applied only to the decorations, in an attempt to get the House of Commons to pay is, on the face of the documents, self-evidently wrong. The claim and the itemised receipt were sent to the House of Commons together. Ms Baird was vindicated fully by the Legge-Kennedy Review into MP's expenses. items of value less than £250,as the Xmas items were separately, could have been claimed from petty cash with no receipt, as the House of Commons rules at the time make clear. However this lady made the position totally open in these documents

Expenses item: That this lady lived in London before she became an MP is clear from the fact (on the site) that she worked in London Chambers. She bought a smaller home in the constituency, on election, which she rightly designated as her second home. She has lived throughout in the same (larger) house (not a flat) in London. Designating the London house as her second home would have (1)cost the taxpayer more and (2)have breached the House of Commons rules since she occupied London more than Redcar. The article as it was prior to this edit was a slur,based on innacuracy.

Incident at Kings Cross This whole piece is an irrelevance which should be removed.It is based on a Daily Mail article, copied word for word by other n/ps, full of the word "alleged" in which what is "alleged" -according to the Mail, by the woman named - is denied by Ms Baird in the article itself. If the entry serves any purpose, it should be put in a balanced way. There was no action against Ms Baird. It is clear that she denied any wrongdoing either about the dog's behaviour or the alleged altercation.

Please give serious attention to these vital corrections of pieces on your website which are wrong and have been repeatedly and rightly corrected, by a range of people, and which should now be made accurate once and for all. _ _ _ _ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onomatopaeia (talkcontribs) 3 October 2010

repositioned with header by Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
For the benefit of other Wikipedians new to this page the "range of people" make the supposed "right" repeated corrections have all been found to be Sockpuppets. If people want to edit Wikipedia they need to stick to using one account only. Also you need to provide sources for your edits - I notice that as with the sockpuppets every addition you have made has been unsourced. Can you also perhaps clarify how you have such an up to the minute knowledge of MS Baird's career. Are you perhaps connected to her in some way, if so you need really should declare this. And why such an emphasis on the fact you are a new account?, people don't usually use such terminology here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that is me moving the comment from the top if you look at the edit history, or my comment above. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clarifying, I've struck thru that part of my comment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of salary[edit]

Declares interest as Labour Party member in Redcar

Whilst socks have detracted from debate, how is Baird's salary relevant to the expense claims? It could be seen as a subtle breach of WP:NPOV; it's not directly related to expenses and the intention could be seen as to portray Baird in a worst light. Maybe this should be removed or moved in the article, or at least reworded. Welcome your thoughts. Computerjoe's talk 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the source for her salary is discussing it in the context of the controversy surrounding her expenses so there's no issue there really. Also, her salary is far higher than that of your average MP involved in the expenses scandal again making it notable. I doagree that perhaps the sentence could be worded better though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I should also say thanks for declaring an interest here, really wish others had done the same.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I just think the article has a particularly hostile tone. Can we seek a WP:3O or maybe a WP:RFC is more appropiate. Welcome your thoughts. Computerjoe's talk 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Well work certainly needs to be done but I don't think the salary is necessarily an issue. The main problem with regards to expenses is that Baird's defence is not mentioned so we need to fix that. Similarly some parts of her career are not covered and it would make much better reading if it was more comprehensive. Some of the sockpuppets tried to add in her more recent activities for example, but everything was unsourced and the material was part of the disruptive edits so people just reverted everything as the vandalism was the main concern back then. Feel free to seek other opinions if you want but surely we can agree on many improvements ourselves? I'll certainly try to add some material--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Willing to work with you. I think this article is problematic because I suspect people have edited it in the past to further certain political views (not trying to assume bad faith, but I think it's bound to happen with articles like this!). If article is expanded, it will probably remove some focus on controversies, which have to be discussed but it's important these don't overshadow the whole article IMO. Computerjoe's talk 21:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as you can see I've already made the speeding section more concise and taken the size of the swing out of the intro. Most significantly I've created a new section on her activities outside Parliament although it needs more work. I very much agree that adding material such as this helps to restore balance to the article as a whole, and it's also important and informative content also.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement. Think the dog poo incident is worth mentioning? Seems a little trivial, to be honest. Computerjoe's talk 20:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes certainly worth mentioning. The main reason it seems trivial is that the content regarding her being investigated by the police has been removed. It is a meaningless paragraph without that phrase so I'll restore the content so it makes sense.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference list[edit]

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sorting out the refs. Don't mind how you format them really, the list is only going to get bigger so probably a good idea.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vera Baird. 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 09:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vera Baird. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)