This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Philip Cross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

Wikimedia Foundation

Philip Davies[edit]

Hi, would you care to look at the sources before reverting? The figures from the Ministry of Justice and discussed in the Parity PDF clearly show that the figures are correct in the article. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 12:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to use third party sources. Hansard and Ministry of Justice count as WP:PRIMARY. Philip Davies himself is an erratically reliable source on just about anything. See also the responses below to Davies' appearances at the Justice for Men and Boys conference in the summer of last year where he raised this issue again and authoritative figures in the field found fault with his claims. Philip Cross (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you post that here or point it out? I can't see it and this certainly seems reliable. It appears to show his figures are correct. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 13:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Davies probably is not cited or mentioned in Department of Justice papers, which you will find is a necessary requirement for anything editors' add to an article. What you are trying to do suggests an attempt synthesis which is against policy. Philip Cross (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of Synthesis, and the source above collates the figures and discusses them at length. It's not a primary source either. Do you have anything more reliable to refute this or should I get an RFC to buffer? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 13:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the passage about the Westminster Hall event in October 2012. It seems to have generated very limited third-party coverage at the time, unlike the J4MB event last year. It is effectively duplication. As the article stands, we have Davies viewpoint in his response to the criticism he received for his J4MB comments: "Davies responded by providing figures from the Ministry of Justice and other sources, which appeared to suggest that the courts give women lesser sentences. He said that [Jean] Corston is thus 'ill-informed or deliberately lying when she accuses me of lying'." Put forward a RFC if you want. Philip Cross (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I really struggled to find where that section was repeated. Do you have any problem with my slight rewording? It waas factually incorrect before. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


I can see what you've done here, only in 1975 the term being used in the wording of the referendum was European Community. Just as this too was informal prior to 1993, you are correct that EEC was the official title. I thought of this before making my edit but chose "EC" alone because of the chosen language used for the purpose of the question. It's fine both ways with me. --OJ (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Antisemitism and Holocaust denial[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Antisemitism and Holocaust denial.  Seagull123  Φ  22:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

James Duddridge[edit]

You removed a whole section because of "notability". Both sources were from respectable local newspapers (one of them is the one of the most successful local newspapers in the UK). I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Many MPs have second jobs. It would be potentially notable if it these were absent from the register of members' interests. As it is, you could only find two local newspapers with the details, one of which is Duddridge's local paper. Earlier, you used two RT clips, which are not reliable sources. I suspect they may also have been copyright violations, which is another reason to delete them. Philip Cross (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

George Galloway[edit]

We have got a request at OTRS with a concerned party that there is a discrepancy with the date of marriage. Basically there are sources with two different years.I did try and change it but the changes were reverted here [1] could we try and do something like maybe not have the year mentioned.Thank you.  FITINDIA  15:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I wish you had explained fully at the time and not used a tabloid. The Guardian article was corrected to 2005 at some point. That is more obviously an RS than the London Evening Standard source, which I have removed as a citation for this detail. Thanks anyway. Philip Cross (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Philip Cross: Thank you for getting this sorted out.  FITINDIA  18:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Comrade Delta"[edit]

Hello Phillip, thank you for taking the time to explain why you've reverted my edits. My initial view is to disagree with your assessment that they violate WP:SYNTH, but I'd be keen to discuss this with you further.

Both the source identifying 'Comrade Delta' as occupying a particular position within the SWP, and the source confirming who occupied that position at the time in question, meet RS requirements. Neither of those points is open to ambiguity or misinterpretation: a formal position within an organisation is either held by a particular person at a particular time, or it is not. My view is that placing these sources next to each other constitutes juxtaposition rather than synthesis, and as such falls within Wikipedia's rules. If either source is incorrect, then I'd be keen to find other reliable sources which can correct them. Likewise, I would be grateful for your views on how the fullest information can be provided on this subject in a way which does not, in your view, violate WP:SYNTH.

I've also noted your concerns that my edits could be potentially defamatory or libellous. I realise this is tricky territory, but my understanding is that publishing information which is true (or was genuinely and reasonably believed to be true at the time of publication) constitutes a defence against claims of defamation or libel. My view is that the RS identifying Comrade Delta's position within the SWP is either true or can reasonably assumed to be (I presume the article itself has not been the subject of successful or ongoing libel proceedings by virtue of the fact that it is still published) as indeed can the RS providing details of former SWP office holders.

I believe that my edits provide important additional detail and context for this entry, and do not understand why they should be reverted. I would grateful for your further input, in the hope of finding a solution which meets both Wikipedia's standards and our (and other editors') mutual satisfaction. Smells like content (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No just don't go there at all. See also WP:BLPCRIME; we cannot identify "Comrade Delta". Philip Cross (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to BLPCRIME. I'd agree that the person in question qualifies as "relatively unknown", which would rule out including these details in the Wikipedia entry for them as an individual, but I continue to think that including some of the information (specifically citing the New Statesman article) would be of benefit to the article on the SWP.
I think that citing a reliable source which identifies Comrade Delta's seniority within the SWP provides important additional context, without raising prohibitive issues under any of the BLP rules: in fact, I think excluding this information risks diminishing the reader's understanding of the case, and possibly even risks affecting the article's neutral point of view.
I would be grateful for your views: I know you say we can't address this, regardless of the existence of reliably-sourced information, but I don't fully understand why. Can you explain? Smells like content (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Reflect that no mainstream publication has exposed "Comrade Delta" directly and ask why. If this alleged crime ever comes to court, we should not risk prejudicing a fair trial by including information which identifies him. We use "a senior party official" in the SWP article, which is enough for context and follows the practice of reliable sources, with the one exception you point to. Philip Cross (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

  • New and expanded research accounts
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: George Galloway[edit]

Your revert: Much of the stuff I deleted from the lead is repeated verbatim in the text, and cited there, and thus appears in the article twice. Is it a good idea to restore that?

I outlined my views on the extreme length of this article on its talkpage some ten days ago without taking action. I'm sorry that you didn't discuss the matter with me there, since you clearly have a different view. You say in your edit summary that this is bound to be a long article, but that is just your POV, and I think you need to justify why you think it should be of such inordinate length – easily the longest article for any British politician bar Churchill. You need to have very strong arguments for over-riding WP guidelines on summary style, overdetailing, and the creation of subarticles where you feel that specific aspects of GG's career deserve recounting in detail.

GG is 63, and knowing his capacity for self-advertisement and his love of the limelight we can expect more from him in the coming years. How many more words might that involve? It needs thinking about. I don't want to disparage your work on the article, nor to pick any quarrel with you, but I would be interested to discuss the issues. I've done a fair number of politician articles, and I'm aware that in producing a proportionate account of such lives one has to be a little ruthless, even at the expense of personal pain. (I suffered mightily in this respect with Bessie Braddock (5,343w)). Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have cut the article recently, including a passage or two in the summary which are duplicated in the article, and expect to do more. But his career at the moment looks moribund, and there may be few new developments to include in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Laurie Penny and Campbell award[edit]

Hi, I saw your reversion of the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer nomination on the basis that the blog source is inadmissible.

I had looked at the policy about identifying reliable sources and thought that, in this case, the Locus Online blog - which is the web version of the industry magazine Locus (magazine) - would be sufficient. I notice now that the Wikipedia article on Locus Online has a challenge on notability, so I understand that could be an indicator that it wasn't sufficient as a reliable source.

If it is not, I wonder would you consider one of the following as admissible:

Alternatively, would a reference to the Locus (or another) print magazine itself be sufficient?

Thanks! VJDocherty (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Laurie Penny has been nominated for an award whose ceremony is due next month 9–13 August. If Penny receives the award, which is announced at the same time as the Hugos, sourcing issues may not exist. Those interested in the award itself will see her nomination on the Wikipedia page, but for most users it is likely to be obscure, and little known awards already clutter many articles. Philip Cross (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Isabel Oakeshott[edit]

Hi Philip. Just wanted you to know that I've added a section on the Isabel Oakshott talk page about your recent removal of the DM position. No rush, but if you could comment, that'd be great. Bromley86 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have responded on the talk page. I removed the url underscoring from the link as it tends to be frowned upon. Philip Cross (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


I've reverted your edit... I'm not sure why you removed the access date for the reference for the climate table? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In the references, the acesss-date "date values" was indicated in red as the specific day was absent, and removal of the parameter seemed the quickest way to resolve the issue; the access-date is not always used. However, after your revert, I checked the edit history and have added the correct date. Philip Cross (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Stella Creasy[edit]

Hi, thank you for leaving a note with your edit. However, you reverted the official portrait of Stella Creasy from the UK Parliament. Furthermore, the page has the same image of Creasy speaking at the 2016 Labour Party Conference further down. So, I'm going to undo your revert. sikander (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"inferior image"? Ok, whatever rocks your boat. sikander (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The long shot you retained does not seem to be the best image from the same event to use. The official portrait is possibly the worst of the six options we have at present, IMO. Philip Cross (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Siqbal, without looking into the matter too deeply I'm surprised if this and other images you've uploaded are the official portraits. They look quite unflattering, and the poor lighting give the subjects a somewhat sinister look. This is Paul (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@This_is_Paul: Making history: official portraits and open source images. sikander (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
They don't seem to look so bad on there, not sure why that is. Are they lower resolution on here, perhaps? The one of Eleanor Smith looks particularly awful. This is Paul (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@This_is_Paul: Maybe Commons compresses the images. I replaced Smith's with the full portrait and that looks better. Still disagree with Phillip's opinion on Creasy's photo. sikander (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
That's better, but the whole series have a problem in that whoever took the pictures didn't get the lighting right. The result in many cases is far from flattering, and even quite hideous at times. If I were responsible for commissioning these I'd demand a refund. This is Paul (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
According to this I'm not alone in my assessment. This is Paul (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn's views on immigration[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn's views on immigration. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't Be a Sucker![edit]

Dear Phil,

Hi. I hope all is well. Do you know of a reliable source for 1943 release and then re-release 1947 of this film. In reliable places I can only find the 1947 date and then mentions of it being made by the Army Signal Corp in the war? Best wishes, Msrasnw (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Tried to sort this out just now. I think the sourcing is now clear about the re-edited re-release of the 1943 short film Don't Be a Sucker! in 1947. Philip Cross (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Phil - I am not so sure ... It is possible that Mr Gabbatt in the Guardian has added the 1943 stuff to match us and/or IMDB .....did you get it from IMDB and is that reliable?

Here it has "Don't Be A Sucker" is an anti-discrimination film which was produced during World War II by the Army Signal Corps for use with the armed forces. After the war, a shortened version of the film was widely shown both commercially and under educational auspices. In 1947, the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee undertook to study the impact of the film.־'־

I have put a link to Cooper and Schneider's later and less useful version on the page.

But I still can't see anything reliable that supports 1943. It would be a bit funny if it was us and the IMDB that have propagated the 1943 date. But no worries.... Best wishes Msrasnw (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The three sources mention an earlier version dating from 1943. For the IRS/IMDb issue, see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Incidentally, the AFI film catalog is often far superior, but it does not list Don't Be a Sucker! Philip Cross (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)