| Revision as of 13:11, 9 August 2009 editClockback (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users871 edits →RfC: Should Cabinet Minister’s past attendance at Marxist meetings be included in his biography?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:50, 11 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,041,630 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (277 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{talkheader}}{{WPBiography | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Ainsworth, Bob|1= | |||
| |living=yes | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low}} | |||
| |class=Start | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=mid}} | |||
| |priority= | |||
| {{WikiProject Coventry|importance=High}} | |||
| |politician-work-group=yes | |||
| |listas=Ainsworth, Bob | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{WP UK Politics|class=start|needs-picture=yes | |||
| |archive= Talk:Bob Ainsworth/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |algo = old(11d) | |||
| |counter=1 | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{reqphoto|politicians and government-people|in=the United Kingdom}} | |||
| == this is significant == | |||
| ==photo== | |||
| Can we find a photo to put here? ] 23:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| this edit I have removed as opinionated speculation... | |||
| possibly motivated by political reasons related to internal Labour Party politics.] Twists that made Bob Ainsworth the least worst choice for the job | |||
| == Bob Ainsworth and the IMG == | |||
| it follows this.... he got the job.....in what was considered by some to be "a surprise choice", | |||
| Having spoken with other former members of the IMG or its successor the ISG, it seems very clear that he was known to people in the Coventry branch but was not at all close. I've spoken to someone who was a candidate member in that branch at that time, and I just don't think it accurate that he was a candidate member for so long. Indeed, no-one is a candidate member that long: candidacy lasts 2 or 3 months, not years, and then the candidate has either dropped out or joined. it's quite credible that he only went to <s>one or</s> two meetings. I am very unhappy that we are using Hitchens' opinion piece to reference this. Hitchens' article references unspecified other articles and from what I can see, the only reference in other article is to this page. So I am adding the fact tag and removing the reference. If we can find a solid reference then we'll add that. If not we should remove the claim. I am also removing him from Former members of the IMG, since he was not. --] (]) 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I left the first bit in and added...considered by some...because some people thought it was ok. The second bit is a bridge to far as regards to adding two and two and getting twenty two. The comments are all speculative and opinionated, ainsworth got the job, no one else was offered the post, so in that way, he was the first one offered the job and the only one actually offered the position,,, everything else is gossip and opinionated comment, ] (]) 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hitchens' article is not the only source on the web, there is from the ''Morning Star'' on 10 July 2009. This does not mean their source was not this article in its previous state, Ainsworth's IMG connection was introduced four and half years ago in edit, but one assumes they will have ] contacts too. Also in the Mail . ] (]) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| even the first bit that I respectfully left in is rubbish. ...this.....in what was considered by some to be "a surprise choice" | |||
| ::I think this is in the region of ] and ]. There are articles which refer to the rumour, but no primary sources. The IMG, of course, didn't even exist then. In 1982 it had changed its name to the Socialist League. I've edited it to say its a rumour, which I guess I can live with. But without a reference, should be include rumour? Following ] I notes that ''Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.'' Therefore I don't think we should treat a report of a rumour as a source: we need a verifiable fact. --] (]) 07:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| of course it was, this comment is from the conservative supporters, the tories think anything he does in to be ridiculed and he is to be ridiculed as much as possible, so we could add to the page.. the tories said he was rubbish. Are we here to add party political comment to a[REDACTED] biography? no we are not and I will resist it in all ways. ] (]) 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps "Duncan" might be so kind as to get in touch with me at the 'Mail on Sunday'. Others, including the 'Morning Star' (which might be assumed to be better informed in this subject than some other papers) have confidently made the suggestion that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member', and, while it would be wrong and unfair to assume that they used Misplaced Pages as their sole source, they did not name any source at all, and the Misplaced Pages article originally contained no references. Can any expert work out from the history who contributed the suggestion? I cannot. I have also been unable to find any other reference to this, either on electronic or cutttings library searches or general Internet searches. | |||
| *" a surprise choice to be Defence Secretary in Gordon Brown’s June reshuffle" - Times; | |||
| :::This of course does not mean that no such references exist, only that I haven't found them. Even so, it seems to me to require further research. Because of this, and because I regard the suggestion as significant, I thought it important to check the Misplaced Pages claim, and duly did so, by the obvious method of approaching someone I am obliged to describe as a 'spokesperson' for Mr Ainsworth. This spokesperson has sought to deal with the allegation with a 'non-denial denial', as I recorded in my MoS article. That is to say, the spokesperson's statement says Mr Ainsworth was never a member of the IM. This is not in fact what was alleged, but a not-very-interested or clued-up person might mistake it for a proper denial. The spokesperson said a number of other things in conversation, most of which are recorded in my article. I responded to this, and to the statement, with the series of questions now published on my blog. The spokesperson has today made it clear that there will be no further response from Mr Ainsworth. If I were Mr Ainsworth, I would do a bit more to clear this up. But that is his affair. | |||
| *"Mr Ainsworth’s appointment in June caused some surprise at Westminster." - Telegraph | |||
| *"Mr Ainsworth's own suitability has been called into question following his surprise elevation to the job during last month's emergency cabinet reshuffle." - BBC | |||
| *"To the surprise of many observers, Bob Ainsworth, a cheerful but pedestrian junior defence minister, was asked to step up to replace Hutton as defence secretary" - Guardian (and again - first line of Ainsworth 5 June 09 profile! ) | |||
| *"eyebrows were raised at the jobs for the moustachioed Bob Ainsworth as Defence Secretary - promoted beyond his means" - The Herald | |||
| as my words "possibly motivated by political reasons related to internal Labour Party politics", that seems perfectly reasonably backed up by the Times story . What does anyone else think? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am still interested in establishing the truth of the matter. So if "Duncan" has any relevant information, I would be glad to hear from him, or from anyone else with relevant knowledge. I really do think it is important to know if the Secretary of State for Defence was associated closely with such a group, and what his attitude is towards it now. I find the statement's suggestion that he always disagreed with everything it stands for rather contradictory, given that in the same statement he says he attended at least two of its meetings. | |||
| : It is enough to leave what is left there now. You can't say...''possibly...bla bla.''...it is speculation and has no place here. ] (]) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well the "possibly" was a qualifer I added because there was only one source. The source is quite definite, and not speculative. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:You can see in these citations you present...surprise,,surprise.. and I left that comment in the article. What I left is strong, simple and clear. ] (]) 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Anyone else wondering about the relationship between offtoriorob and Ainsworth? All offtoriorob has done is attempt to soften the profile: he has claimed that the comment "At this time he attended several International Marxist Group meetings before deciding not to continue his interest in the group" is contentious, when it is anything but. Ainsworth has confirmed on the record that he attended meetings (as has Mustafa Bevi), and that he decided not to pursue his interest. Offtoriorob has also attempted to remove citations from the Daily Mail; and he is now attempting to make out that Ainsworth was the first-choice for Defence Secretary, and that any source which claims otherwise is a conservative conspiracy. I think there are some credibility issues here.] (]) 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], don't use my username in inverted commas. Misplaced Pages's policy is that users should be referred to by their usernames. The inverted commas could infer that I am not called ], and that innuendo is a breach of our policy to ]. It is my username and it should be used.--] (]) 23:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Off2riorob has nearly 7000 edits on a wide variety of pages ; you have 8, all on Talk:Bob Ainsworth. Please do not make casual accusations. For example he has not attempted to make out that Ainsworth was first choice, merely questioned the basis for saying concretely that he wasn't. Nor did he use or imply anything relating to "conspiracy". As for your allusion to Mustafa Bevi - his comments here on this talk page are interesting but have no status as a ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you rd232, edit conflict..Well, I respect your comments, let me try and reply to a couple of them, Ainsworth was the first and only person to be actually offered his job. I am not here to soften Ainsworths profile, I have worked towards the insertion of the verifyable comment that he went to meetings of this group..I am for neutral encyclopedic articles. I dislike opinionated speculation presented as if fact, I am a good guy, honest. I am against any insertion of this couple of meetings but I have worked towards and assisted in an insertion.] (]) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, but just go back to the Times article a moment and consider again whether it can be described as "speculation". It's also not talking about others being actually offered the job, it's about others being ''considered''. I think that is significant, not speculation, and from a ]. Maybe it could be qualified by explicitly attributing it to the Times, but I think it belongs in the entry, because the appointment to Defence Sec is so significant in Ainsworth's career that circumstances of it are important. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll have a good look at the cites. I dislike all that, according to speculation commented written by jonny from the times. No one was at the meeting and there has been no official comment regarding it. In my opinion he has been promoted to the job and we should respect that, not start with, jonny was first choice but he couldn't get it so harry was second choice but this faction didn't like him so the position must have been given to bob to appease the unions according to the gossip and the point of view at the times tea room. ] (]) 09:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "Off2riorob has nearly 7000 edits on a wide variety of pages" but Rd232 how can number of edits be a criterion in deciding if an editor is good or not? Perhaps a consideration of the number of edit wars an editor has been involved in or the number of times an editor's account has been blocked by administrators would be better indicators. In my exchange with Off2riorob re: Ainsworth's over-promotion (now no longer in doubt and backed up by a variety of references from the BBC to the Guardian) he clearly did not show good faith, was at times rude, and was obsessive about cutting out anything negative about "Bob" (as he calls him). He also made a number of good points, particularly about use of language (which I acknowledged and have learned from). But overall my impression was that he does not have a neutral position when it comes to this subject.] (]) 11:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, I traced the reference to this four and a half years ago and raised it with the user responsible, as Mr Hitchens did shortly after posting the above. ] (]) 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The issue is not Off2riorob's general quality as editor ("good or not"); I was merely responding to Chrisp's insinuation here of a connection between off2riorob and Ainsworth, to which the long edit history elsewhere is highly relevant. As to neutral position: it is pretty rare for editors on political topics not to ''have'' a position. The issue is how this impacts on their editing and discussion, and their ability/willingness to follow policy and consensus. Anyway, further discussion of Off2riorob, if it's required, should take place elsewhere. Meanwhile, some of your own remarks ( "clearly did not show good faith", "obsessive about cutting out anything negative" ) are also problematic. Rather than conduct endless postmortems, let's either return to the substance of any outstanding issues, or just leave it here. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Discussion of me on this board should stop now, take it to a complaint board. ] (]) 11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::Misplaced Pages has different standards from journalism. I'm not commenting on ]'s journalism, but on whether the reference meets Wikpedia's standards. If we cannot find a verifiable source then it should be removed. I'll give it 24 hours, then move it here. --] (]) 23:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was in error on this point. In articles that relate to living persons, unverified material should be deleted straight away and not copied to the Talk page. --] (]) 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If Duncan's name is Duncan then that's fine by me. If the inverted commas upset him, I'll stop using them. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's not, given common practice here, but my aim was to draw attention to the fact that we don't know who we're dealing with most of the time, than to suggest he was acting in bad faith. My name certainly isn't "Clockback", the person who placed the original claim about the IMG in the entry assures us on his talk page that the name he uses here isn't his real one. I disapprove of the anonymity common on the Web, and I think some of the problems we are having here are the result of that anonymity. Two editors appear to have personal direct knowledge of the matter. Neither of them can be traced and asked to elaborate or provide sources or references. Anyone, by contrast, can contact me, and I have given a great deal of detail about how and where I obtained my information. | |||
| Having a look at the times piece, it is speculation almost all of it. We have the simple clear statement that it was a suprise to some that he was appointed... | |||
| ::::Nor am I sure what Duncan means by saying that Wikpedia's standards are different from those of journalism. It seems to me that I've made more of an effort to check this story, and to qualify it, than Misplaced Pages editors have. I've also done so without the protection of anonymity. If Duncan proposes removing the reference, I propose he replaces it with a summary of my encounter with Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson. It is significant and interesting that a Cabinet Minister, in his adult life, should be closely in touch with a revolutionary radical organisation. It is also significant and interesting that he is reticent when asked about it. These are both verified facts. Mr Ainsworth plainly had some contact with the IMG, and is apparently unwilling to provide full details of it. Duncan, meanwhile, appears by his own account to know far more about this than I do. Could he please share it with us, in the interest of raising Misplaced Pages's standards to the levels of those practised by journalists? Peter Hitchens, signed in as ] (]) 09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] is missing the point on a two things. First, if I know something, and there are no reliable references, then it's not good enough for Misplaced Pages's policy. That would be what we call ]. We have different standards, encyclopedic ones, which differ from journalism. What I do know is that the reply of Ainsworth's people is accurate. You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate. <s>Candidacy is to membership as being a PPC is to being an MP.</s> (Sorry, that's not a good comparison)''. Second, usernames ''are'' names here: they allow people to be'' known to others and they are unique and functional. If you want to write here on Misplaced Pages, you have to accept the rules. --] (]) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I also note this from the times article...... | |||
| :I've removed the unsourced claim of association with IMG. This is absolutely something which ] policy requires ] for, and currently there aren't even disputed ones - zip, nada. (). ] <sup>]</sup> 10:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "Mr Ainsworth, then Armed Forces Minister, had been in the running from the off. It is likely that he was Mr Hutton’s recommendation as he offered continuity. Ms Kennedy’s departure and Mr Brown’s weakened position meant that the Prime Minister was no longer in a position to resist an appointment that would satisfy both defence chiefs and Labour MPs". ] (]) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have posted a comment on rd232's talk page, asking him to reconsider this action, which seems to me to pre-empt and ignore the discussion we are having here. The undisputed source for Mr Ainsworth's association with the IMG is now Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson, who confirms that he attended meetings of the organisation, but declines to answer detailed questions about it. this is simply not 'zip, nada'. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 11:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:"Speculation" is about events in the future; I guess you mean "gossip" or something. But the Times article seems to be based on leaks ("senior figure"), not (merely) the fevered imaginings of a journalist. The above would be a relevant part of the story too. I don't think a sentence or two about the appointment would be undue. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Speculation can also be about events in the past. Not speculation? there where no announcements, no one said anything about it! When I say speculation I mean a couple of people get together and get their opinions and anything they have heard and add that together and make it into a story, and here is the story, story being the optimum word, well, if you really think it will be beneficial to the article, knock something up and attribute it as ..it has been summised, it has been suggested, according to supposed leaks, or something along those lines and we will also need to add the comment I posted above to balance.. also be careful not to coatrack anyone else, Gordon Brown, for example, or the chaotic shuffle on to this biography. Personally I think it adds nothing.. but hey..regards ] (]) 12:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to supposed leaks from a an unnamed so called senior figure that is in the know....] (]) 12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Just a thought: I think this discussion suggests an interesting conflict between the apparent value of media/news reporting and 'official comment' with respect to inclusion in WP. often (reliably) informed us as to the origin of leaked political stories, whose source could not be named. And likewise we all know that official statements, such as the existence of WMD, should not be believed and are about as reliable George Wickham's word and Alan Duncan's genuine hardship. I'm sure there exists all shades of truth and politic in between those extremes but the Boothby scandal teaches us how both sources can be compromised by political pressure such that we can only strive to sift through all possible information and ultimately use our own judgement to reflect the truth. However, it does seem to me that there is a greater threat/caution to journalists than there is to politicians - Tony Bliar was not impeached and roams free and making money to this day. Newspapers can issue a retraction you might need a magnifying glass to spot but who tends to be the biggest liars or vehicles of truth? It's a tough one, I know. ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, there was I, debating this with Duncan and Mr Cross, when rd232 swoops down from on high and simply removes the reference. He doesn't modify it to deal with new information. He removes it, dismissing objections (inaccurately) as "zip, nada" . That's what I mean by "pre-empted". My point was then, and is now, that the reference should not be removed without something being substituted for it. I have obtained, in my job as a newspaper reporter, an on the record statement from Mr Ainsworth's own taxpayer-funded spokesperson, made on his behalf and with his knowledge, confirming that he attended IMG meetings at the time stated. I really do not know what could be more reliable than that, however prejudiced anyone may be against me personally. I have also published a list of supplementary questions which I put to the same spokesperson, which that spokesperson has declined to answer. I think that unwillingness to answer is worth recording. Mr rd232 has stopped claiming that this is "zip, nada", unsurprisingly since it so evidently isn't. He now relies on general Misplaced Pages rules, which oddly enough have allowed this reference to stand unchallenged by anyone (including its subject) for four years. Now that there's actually some unequivocal, openly-sourced information provided by a named and traceable person, the reference is removed under a rule(the use of which seems to me rather rudely to suggest that I haven't done my job properly)- whereas it was allowed to remain for all that time when the source was pseudonymous and there was no factual reference at all? This is barmy. And why the rush to remove it now? Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 20:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Replied on mimi's talk. ] (]) 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::First, you're subject to the same WP rules as everyone else. If you publish these allegations in a major paper, we can discuss reporting that. Qua WP editor your ] has no standing. Second, it doesn't matter how long it's been there unsourced; WP working as it does, this happens all the time. It's fixed now by taking it out pending discussion, and unless a reliable source is forthcoming, that's how it'll stay. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], thanks for that. --] (]) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == you messed up my edit. == | |||
| I shall try to persist. I do not think Rd232 or Duncan are paying attention to what I am saying. There is a published source. The following has been published in The Mail on Sunday, (19th July 2009, p.27): | |||
| You upset the link, so I reverted to my comment. All my comments are from the link, well cited comments, so it is good to add well cited comments at this point the article is in need of expansion.] (]) 21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "I can recall members of the International Marxist Group yelling ‘Victory to the IRA!’ on student demonstrations. So I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student. I think the links between ‘New Labour’ and the revolutionary Marxist Left are extensive, interesting and important. So I asked a ‘spokesperson’ about it. She said: ‘He was never a member.’ Well, that looks like a denial, but isn’t. The story says he was a candidate for membership, not that he was a member. The source said: ‘A friend who was in the organisation tried to persuade him to join.’ Apparently he went to ‘a couple’ of meetings? Only two, or more? No answer. The source wouldn’t say. The source said he just went because he was open-minded. So would he have gone to a BNP meeting, being so open-minded? The source: 'Certainly not.’Then why go to a meeting of a group that supported the IRA? The spokesperson floundered. Eventually I was sent a written statement asserting that Mr Ainsworth’s brush with the IMG ‘reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say’. If he had such a firm view already, why go once, let alone twice? When I asked several supplementary questions, the answer was silence. I shall publish the unanswered questions on my blog and continue to press for answers." | |||
| :]. And why did you post this twice? See my reply above. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Duncan changed "several meetings" to "a few meetings" . I prefer "several" - sounds better to me. And "a few meetings" also sounds like a larger number (the original spokesperson quote was "a couple of meetings"). ] <sup>]</sup> 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The article can be found on the web at: | |||
| :Several is more than a few. Since couple is in the reference, I will change the edit to say that.--] (]) 08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Several is more than a few." - I guessed that was your opinion, but I think the opposite! "a couple" is fine. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Not notable events or reports == | |||
| http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200583/PETER-HITCHENS-How-long-abort-old-too.html | |||
| In the long term reality of a biography, actually even in the short term this new addition is of no value.. | |||
| So can my supplementary questions at | |||
| "In December 2009, Ainsworth announced that he would have been more circumspect about supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq had he known that Saddam Hussein did not in fact have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal." | |||
| http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/07/the-defence-secretary-and-the-international-marxist-group.html | |||
| If you asked each and every MP this question they would all say the same thing. It is meaningless. ] (]) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As is clear, I am the author of thsi published source. I would think it invidious to post it myself on this entry, but I really don't see why othr editors should act as if it doesn't exist. | |||
| == Fixing MiszaBot archiving == | |||
| Peter Hitchens logged in as ] (]) 08:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ]. Take a look here - ] - at our policy for verifiability. Your article does not verify that he was a candidate member. Your article says that you've read unspecified reports. If we accepted that as a standard, then we could accept ] and ]. We don't. Take a look also at our policy on sources - ]. There are no primary sources so far good enough for us: note that under our policy a self-published statement by Ainsworth himself would not be good enough. Ainsworth had such a fleeting connection - unlike Darling, for example, who sold the press and identified himself with the IMG - and wasn't moving left at that time so I think you're not likely to find a primary source. This business had broken a primary rule for Wikpedia: Misplaced Pages started to become a primary source for that material. That is not our role. People citing rumours from other people is not verification. --] (]) 13:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more point. I would also argue that a statement that Ainsworth attended a couple of IMG meetings in 1982 (which perhaps can be verified) does not meet our standards for notability. It would also be out of balance to the rest of the article, which is underlaboured.--] (]) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The template for MiszaBot at the head of this page was sending old threads over to ''Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive %(counter)d'', which is clearly the wrong place. I think MiszaBot has a security feature that disallows targets which are not subpages, most of the time. I fixed that. I hope someone will have the patience to sort out two incorrect archivals which occurred, one on 20 August and the other on 15 December. These are the only two times that MiszaBot has run, and the threads were copied to /dev/null both times. Also a proper archive box should be created. ] (]) 07:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do so wish people would actually read what I am saying. I am not arguing for the retention of the unreferenced allegation that Mr Ainsworth was a "candidate member " of the IMG. I am arguing for it not to be removed until and unless it is replaced with the referenced fact that Mr Ainsworth says he attended IMG meetings in the early 1980s, but refuses to answer further questions on his contacts with that organisation. Duncan has himself said (22.56, 22nd July) that "You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate." From my outside knowledge of the IMG in the early 1970s, when I belonged to the rival IS but had many contacts with IMG members, I would very much endorse that. You didn't just go to their meetings, and members had code-names. I have read the policy. I cannot see that it really covers this instance. If I were not the author of the newspaper article in which Mr Ainsworth's attendance was confirmed, matters would be much more straightforward. Everyone could agree that it was a valid reference. So why not do that anyway? As I have said, I don't feel it's my place to make a reference to my own work, so I am most reluctant to alter the entry unilaterally, though I have provided the references for anyone who wants to. But I am asking other editors to treat my story as they would any other published newspaper story. Referring to Mr Ainsworth's statement as 'self-published' is absurd. Mr Ainsworth did not volunteer the information. By the way, Alistair Darling's spokesman denies that he was ever a member of the IMG, a fact I have also recorded in the Mail on Sunday. The fact that the Ainsworth reference is 'unlaboured' is due to the profound uninterestingness of Mr Ainsworth. This is not a reason for excluding from it what is perhaps the single most interesting fact that is known about him. On the contrary. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : That should do it. ] (]) 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == POV? == | |||
| In the absence of any reply from the supporters of the excision of all reference to the IMG, I will seek whatever arbitration is available on Misplaced Pages. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| How come there is no mention of all the criticism Ainsworth has received as Defence Secretary? (] (]) 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| OK, well sorry, the version of the article I looked at had no sources and I missed the mention on the talk page of Hitchens' article and the Morning Star editorial. Nonetheless, Hitchens' article references uncited "stories" (the Star?), which I haven't been able to find, and certainly what has been published (including the unsourced, uncredited Morning Star editorial aside) is insufficiently strong to support the claim. Furthermore, I would think any arbitration (or ]) attempt would probably take into account the fact that Hitchens in the published article seems primarily interested in linking Ainsworth with support for a terrorist group (that "victory for the IRA" slogan) in what is hard not to think of as a smear. Nonetheless, if Hitchens wishes to publish more material, we can consider that. Rd232/] (]) 11:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I for one will easily wonder what is the reason that the ] deserves have a repair bill ''atleast'' 5 times larger than the amount of money ] is sold for. A major reason for the repair bill is that a crewmember allowed the boat almost to sink, and the MoD (Ainsworth was the Minister/Secretary at that time) has yet not been looking for someone responsible. The Royal Navy is answerable to the Government, but that does not excuse any MP from doing a good job.--] (]) 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :] that's given me a smile. Thanks. But, honestly, what we have here is a content dispute. Arbitration is really for intractable disputes where, often, more than one participant is breaking policy. This on the other hand is really clear, and there's no dispute about how to implement our policies. This issue is that you think (and that's your right) that our policies on self-publication and interestingness are mistaken. But arbitration won't lead to any change in Misplaced Pages's core policies. So, until we have a indisputable reference, I can't see this claim going in to the article. --] (]) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Well, at least that produced a response. But people (who is this 'we', by the way? What does Duncan mean by 'our' policies? I'm not part of any 'we' Is he? If so, what is it? ) still aren't reading what I'm saying. And that is why this is becoming an intractable dispute, in need of arbitration. We could easily have had multiple reversions by now if I hadn't chosen to discuss it instead, and had acted unilaterally to pre-empt discussion as others , in my view, have done. I much prefer to discuss first, achieve agreement and change the wording by consensus. I continue to seek this. But if others simply don't listen to argument, then I think we need to break out of what is becoming a closed circle in which, for whatever reasons, or none, some people wish to remove some information from the public domain. We all of us know how important Misplaced Pages has become as a first source of reference. That's why we bother. But couldn't Duncan and rd232 be a little less partisan? This isn't a matter of 'policies', whatever they are (the use of this expression makes ME smile, reminding as it does of shops saying it's 'company policy' not to stock goods I want to buy, or not to refund certain purchases,etc. What it means is 'This is what we have decided to do, like it or lump it'). Well, the problem with this 'policy' is that it mis-describes the nature of the information I seek to have included. It's a matter of plain fact. A story in the Mail on Sunday, quoting Bob Ainsworth's spokesperson answering what are clearly unwecome questions is not 'self-publication by Mr Ainsworth. The acknowledged attendance of a Secretary of State for Defence at meetings of a secretive revolutionary organisation is not 'uninteresting' . What would Duncan and rd232 say if someone tried to excise parallel information about a member of the Shadow Cabinet attending BNP meetings in his thirties, which had appeared, say , in the 'Daily Mirror'? Not hard to guess. Some people may not like the Mail on Sunday, bafflingly enough, but it is a major established newspaper, professionally produced, which operates under the laws of England, laws which seriously penalise the publication of false or defamatory stories. I am not citing, or proposing to cite, or arguing that Misplaced Pages should cite the 'Morning Star' or other newspaper articles before mine, whose source seems to have been the original Misplaced Pages claim about 'candidate membership'. That would be circular. Here and now we have new information. This is the wording I suggest: "Mr Ainsworth confirmed in 2009 that he had attended 'a couple' of meetings of the International Marxist Group in the early 1980s". That's it. That's all I'm asking for. It could also quote his spokesperson's gloss on this, if people felt it fair to do so. I have given the reference, or references, which could then be given. Why not? Those who go to the reference can see what Disembrangler describes as a 'smear' and form their own judgement. I'd only say that the government of which Mr Ainsworth has been a loyal and enthusiastic member actually granted 'Victory to the IRA' in the Belfast Agreement of 1998. And I don't think any member or supporter of the IMG would deny that its members did support this slogan, which I think even appeared on the front page of its newspaper, or that it is a good indication of the sort of positions the IMG took. Sometimes the truth damages. That does not mean that it is a smear to state the truth.Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 13:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::], when I write of 'we' and of 'our policies' I am indeed including you. If you participate in Misplaced Pages, then you follow the community's policies. I object to your statement that I or other editors are partisan. That is untrue, unevidenced and in breach of our policy to ]. --] (]) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In an of the IS originally published in 1975 by ] we find the following (under the heading "1969-1970: Towards a Workers’ Party"): "IS’s position was always one of unconditional support for the IRA in the struggle against imperialism". As you were saying, "Sometimes the truth damages. That does not mean that it is a smear to state the truth." ] (]) 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| @Clockback: To spell it out, Hitchens' article () reports seeing stories that Bob was a "candidate member". Doesn't say where, which would allow us to draw on those. Reports a denial from the group that Bob was a member, but expresses scepticism about what that means. Conclusions? Hitchens doesn't draw any, he just leaves innuendo and speculation hanging. Just not enough to support any factual claims in the WP entry (and reporting Hitchens' speculation would be ]). PS The subheading in the mail article is "The Minister and the IRA fan club". Frankly I'm wondering if the Mail's lawyers were awake when they cleared that (but perhaps they guessed, correctly it seems, that Ainsworth wouldn't want to bring attention to the issue by suing). At any rate, it has "blatant smear" written all over it, not "sober attempt to reveal the truth". PPS As for clockback's remarks about partisanship - I have no love for Labour, Ainsworth, the Mail, Hitchens, or IMG. The issue is sourcing, and if Ainsworth were trying to push something similarly unsourced on Hitchen's WP entry I'd reject that. PPPS Clockback keeps referring to the info as being "interesting". I may have already made this point, but WP isn't supposed to be "interesting". It's supposed to be boring, in the sense that it reports only information well established elsewhere. That's what ] means. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| To spell it out. Fact: Bob Ainsworth attended meetings of the IMG in 1982-83. Fact: This is a significant part of his political history. Fact: There is a source for this story. All the rest is ad hominem stuff directed against me, fun but futile, and infantile political prejudice directed against my newspaper. This is an encyclopaedia. You should learn to rise above such things. Once again, since none of you answers this point (despite claims of impartiality) if it emerged that a Shadow Cabinet member had attended BNP meeetings, and he admitted it on the record in a left-wing British national newspaper, all those who oppose the inclusion of comparable information about Mr Ainsworth would be in favour of its inclusion in the case of the hypothetical Tory. Fact, prejudice and political bias are impeding the inclusion of a fact in Misplaced Pages. Now, are you going to put the fact in, with the reference supplied, or am I going to put this up for arbitration? PS, Mr Cross must know that, as well as being entirely frank about my revolutionary past, I have expressed unqualified regret for my revolutionary positions many times, and accepted without reservation that they were wrong and wicked. I won't go into the daft Trotskyist theology of "unconditional but critical support" just now. But I might add, from a purely personal position, that I have always opposed and hated terrorism, and that I pursued and obtained the expulsion of a member of York IS, in 1972, because he had joined in the shouting of 'Victory to the IRA' on a demonstration. He subsequently joined...the IMG, where he was much happier. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 08:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well if it makes you happy, I'll address this point: "if it emerged that a Shadow Cabinet member had attended BNP meeetings, and he admitted it on the record in a left-wing British national newspaper..." - then that admission, in his own words, would be citable from the published source. This hypothetical example is irrelevant to the present case as it currently stands. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, I'd urge you (again) to look at ]. What you personally think is true is irrelevant. What matters is what's verifiable from published sources (sources considered ] in relation to the info cited). ] <sup>]</sup> 09:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| What is so difficult about this? RD232 says "What you personally think is true is irrelevant. What matters is what's verifiable from published sources (sources considered reliable sources in relation to the info cited)." Couldn't agree more. It's what Mr Ainsworth says is true that matters. That's why I keep referring to the published source for the very limited information I think should be displayed - namely my article published in the Mail on Sunday, reference given above. Mr Ainsworth's refusal to discuss the matter further is also recorded in the blog entry on the MoS site, to which I also provide a reference. Let us go through the stages here. The claim ( now removed) on Misplaced Pages was that Mr Ainsworth had been a 'candidate member ' of the IMG. I accept that this cannot be verified, and should not stand . My contention, once again, is that it should not be removed and replaced with nothing, but be replaced by a an acknowledged fact (see above) which can be verified. The response of my opponents seems to be that , because I, a person they disapprove of, verified it, in a paper they dislike, it doesn't count, and even if it did, it's not significant enough to include. These are silly objections. Why? They have nothing to do with the rules, which are that you shouldn't insert stuff that's not verifiable from an identifiable source. First, Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson did not deny the claim in toto. Next, the spokesperson did not fully confirm the claim. If that were all, it might conceivably excuse this ludicrous pettifogging. But it's not. What then happened was that Mr Ainwsorth's spokesperson said specifically that Mr Ainsworth had attended IMG meetings. My newspaper then published this unquestioned and unquestionable fact. This is the source for the mention I seek to have included. This was in answer to questions asked on the basis of claims made in Misplaced Pages. But so what? That has no bearing on the status of the information now. It is, as I say, an independent fact, which does not require any reference to the previous claims. It is, repeat, a free-standing fact. Please just put it in the entry. Meanwhile, I shall seek help. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 10:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break=== | |||
| Reminder: use : for indenting comments. Reminder: ], ], and ]. Summary of the relevant part of the previous discussion: no source sufficient to include the claim that Ainsworth was connected with the IMG has been presented (yet). Hitchens' article is insufficient, since it claims to rely on unidentified "stories" - it does not itself actually ''make'' the claim. Unless further sources are forthcoming, that's an end of the matter. Escalation of the issue without further sources is a waste of time, but if Clockback insists, I suggest ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The above is inaccurate. My story does not 'claim to rely' ( do try to avoid personal attacks) or even 'rely' on 'unidentified sources'. The story is the result of direct questions put to Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson, and answered, in that spokesperson's official capacity. These questions happen to have been prompted by the Misplaced Pages entry, but could equally have been prompted by private information, intuition or pure curiosity. There is no actual relation between the old unsourced Misplaced Pages allegation, and the new factual statement obtained thanks to my questions. The statement does not rely in any way on the rightness (or wrongness), or origin, or character of the previous Misplaced Pages claim. As I say above, it is a freestanding, referenced fact with a reliable source. I hope this logic is now clear. If it is not, perhaps RD232 could point out which bit of it is not clear, where my logic is at fault or where it is factually incorrect. Thanks to this, there now exists a reliable source, based upon which this entry can say that Mr Ainsworth attended IMG meetings in the 1980s. When RD232 says "there is no source sufficient to conclude the claim that Ainsworth was connected with the IMG" he is again inaccurate. There is no 'claim' that Mr Ainsworth ' was connected' with the IMG. there is a statement by Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson that he attended IMG meetings. As for the source, I maintain that the source is entirely sufficient. If RD232 believes it is not, then he needs to explain what is wrong with it, and why he believes it should not be trusted. This he has so far entirely failed to do. Establishing the truth is never 'a waste of time'. Peter Hitchens signed in as ] (]) 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You say "there is a statement by Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson that he attended IMG meetings." Well if I'd seen a source that supported a sentence like that, the discussion would have proceeded differently. Perhaps you could quote the relevant statement and link to the source. All I've seen is inference threaded between denials you claim are insufficiently comprehensive. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I seem to have missed what Hitchens' blog says about this: "When I sought more information about Mr Ainsworth's alleged links with the IMG, I talked to a 'spokesperson' who, after an unsatisfactory phone conversation, sent me a written statement. This is what it said: 'Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say.'" I think any statement that could back up would be covered by ], but you could try asking others (], ]). It doesn't help that Hitchens puts spokesperson in inverted commas. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::And while I am demolishing the facts and logic of the 'don't mention the IMG' group, let me also deal with this contribution from RD232: "Well if it makes you happy, I'll address this point: "if it emerged that a Shadow Cabinet member had attended BNP meeetings, and he admitted it on the record in a left-wing British national newspaper..." - then that admission, in his own words, would be citable from the published source. This hypothetical example is irrelevant to the present case as it currently stands." Alas, it does not make me happy. Why. Because it doesn't in fact address it all. The hypothetical example is identical to the present case, except that the newspaper is left-wing, the politician is a Tory and it is the BNP, not the IMG. RD232 has slipped in the phrase "in his own words" but this is immaterial. Very few politicians now admit things themselves. They are inaccessible to all but a chosen few safe and trusted lobby reporters, and employ spokespersons to do it for them, as did Mr Ainsworth. If the fact that the information originates from an un-named spokesperson disqualifies it from use, then about 80% of the published statements on or about politicians would have to be discounted, here and elsewhere. Does he not think that an attempt to falsify his spokesperson's words in a major national newspaper would have resulted in a swift denial and demand for an apology? This would surely be a reliable test. This is why newspaper stories are generally accepted as verification, because of the fact that these stories are a) checked and legalled by the papers and b) subject to the libel laws and the PCC in England, and to public rebuttal in all jurisdictions. There has been neither a denial nor a demand for an apology, because the quotation and attribution are both accurate. Again, we have an amazing ultra-fastidiousness at work, an ultra-fastidiousness which doesn't apply elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, and which didn't prevent the unverified claim of 'candidate membership' to stand unchallenged for several years. Now that we finally have accurate information, there is resolute and pernickety opposition to its being included. Bizarre. I remain unable to see why the brief statement I suggest cannot be inserted in the entry. It's also at least as significant as Mr Ainsworth's presidency of a union branch. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have to point out that in the published article it merely says "spokesman"; it isn't at all clear who this is a spokesman for (I had rather assumed IMG, but you imply above it's Ainsworth). And as pointed out repeatedly, reported denial + implication isn't enough. If the article actually explicitly said "Ainsworth was a candidate member, and attended meetings", that would be different. It might still not be sufficient given the denial, but at least there'd been an argument which we could constructively ask others about (eg via ]). ] <sup>]</sup> 09:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I do think there's a difference in notability between heading the union at Jaguar and attending a couple of IMG meetings. If you consider ] then such a minor event would be quite out of balance. I don't understand why attending a couple of IMG meetings would have in any way shifted the political views of someone who was not moving left at the time. --] (]) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The idea this was a spokesperson for the IMG is just obtuse. Apart from the facts that the IMG ceased to exist many years ago, and that secretive Bolshevik vanguard party organisations don't have spokespersons who discuss their membership or recruitment or meetings with the press, it's perfectly clear from all my earlier contributions to this discussion that the spokesperson is Mr Ainsworth's official spokesperson in his capacity as Defence Secretary(Eg my contribution on 22nd July at 12.33 "The undisputed source for Mr Ainsworth's association with the IMG is now Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson, who confirms that he attended meetings of the organisation"). I have all along suspected that my opponents in this matter weren't reading what I was saying, and it is now quite obvious that this is the case. They still don't seem aware that I don't wish to repeat the claim that Mr Ainsworth was a "candidate memebr" of the IMG,though I have lost count of the number of times I have said this. I simply wish to state that the attended IMG meetings, and won't elaborate. I don't consider mention of the union branch chairmanship 'undue'. I just think that it is less significant than attendance at meetings of a clandestine revolutionary organisation. Duncan may think these meetings affected Mr Ainworth's views, or that they didn't. i have no idea if he was'moving left' at the time, or moving north, either. I have never made ay suggestions about this unknowable thing, preferring to stick to the knowable and known. I may think his attendance at generally closed meetings of a generally closed organisation( see Duncan's explanation of the rules governing access to IMG meetings above)are indicative of Mr Ainsworth's views at the time, and the development of his politics subsequently. Others may think they are not. It doesn't matter. The fact is significant precisely because it helps readers to independently form their ideas of what sort of politician Mr Ainsworth is, on the basis of the known and undisputed facts about him. Some may think it doesn't matter. Some may think it does. All will have the maximum amount of verifiable information. Likewise, the fact that he refuses to discuss the matter any further is significant. In the absence of anyone else inserting the referenced facts, that he attended meetings of the IMG and that he won't discuss it, I propose to do so a fortnight from today (26th July 2009). I would much rather somebody else did it, for the reasons stated, but it should clearly be there and if nobody else will insert it, then I will . There is ,as is clearly demonstrated by the above, no good reason for excluding it. I'd be delighted if anyone else were to get involved. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :], so long as there is not consensus for you to introduce that material and while other editors consider it not to be of encyclopedic value, you are not to do that. Misplaced Pages's policy is that consensus must be won on the Talk pages before disputed material is added. The IMG was not clandestine: it was a legal organisation but, like my chess club, its meetings are for members. --] (]) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: FYI ] has now requested a ]. ] (]) 22:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Who is Duncan to say "You are not to do that" in this peremptory fashion? Why should his obduracy prevent the insertion of a verified fact in the entry? I have striven for days on end to achieve consensus with two wholly unresponsive opponents, who have not moved an eighth of an inch, have not responded to my points of argument, have not challenged my logic and have not questioned or undermined my facts. One of them has clearly demonstrated above that he cannot even be bothered to read my arguments. If those who oppose this entry are not prepared to debate (they ceaselessly either misunderstand or misrepresent the nature of the entry I propose to make, repeatedly suggesting that I wish to restore the unproven allegation that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member' of the IMG when I have repeatedly stated that I do not wish to do this. This is hardly surprising, if they are not reading what I am saying). This is why I have sought outside intervention, as I said I would do. By the way, the word 'clandestine' is not synonymous with illegality in any dictionary known to me. To my personal knowledge, the IMG in the 1970s used code-names in internal documents to disguise the identities of its members. The chess club comparison is, however, very funny indeed, and I am grateful to Duncan for brightening an otherwise gloomy Monday morning. Peter Hitchens signed in as ] (]) 08:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue might have been clarified sooner if (a) you'd been less wordy, expending far too much time and energy on breaching the Misplaced Pages policy ] (b) more helpful in providing links to the sources when they were clearly needed or even asked for (regardless that they had been mentioned earlier in a lengthy discussion) (c) Hitchen's blog didn't (pathetically) fail to work in ] (d) the significance of the blog (labelled "supplementary questions" not properly explained. Also, failure to agree with you does not constitute unwillingness to debate. PS Duncan is merely stating ] policy - this is not ''his'' obduracy, it is what is sometimes called "BLP caution", i.e. disputed facts only added after editor agreement (]), not before. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], I am glad to have brightened your morning. As an experienced Misplaced Pages editor my role includes guiding other editors on what its policies allow. You proposed to do something which, given the current state of the consensus on this page, you are not to do. ] makes a good point about ]: rather than find new references which are line with our policies, you are accusing us of bias. It would be defaulting with the community's policy of helping newer editors avoid mistakes of we were to be silent and allow you to continue uncorrected. If we were unresponsive, we would not be responding: we are. Certainly I understand that you are currently proposing adding a statement that Ainsworth attended a couple of IMG meetings in 1982, using your article (which cites an unnamed spoksperson) as a reference. My view is that is not notable, it would be out of line with the balance of the article, it is not supported by a primary reference, and so on. One final point: A clandestine organisation is one which is secret in order to carry out illicit acitivies. The IMG was a legal organisation, with public periodicals, with named spokespeople (including ]) and which held both public meetings in addition to members' meetings. Members were obliged to sell its press and thus every member was publicly identified, as least to the activists and police who followed their locality. The organisation was closely observed by the police and there was no suggestion that the organisation had engaged in any illicit activity. The use of pen-names primarily protects members from employers' black-listing, and that policy was continued by the IMG's successor, the ], which was a registered political party: hardly clandestine! --] (]) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Third opinion=== | |||
| {|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;" | |||
| |] '''Response to ] (Dispute over inclusion of two verified facts about Mr Ainsworth)''': | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="padding-left:0.6cm"|In this situation it is not conventional to provide an opinion following the ] process as more than 2 editors have made significant contributions to the discussion. My apologies. Please check ] for alternatives. However, speaking as an uninvolved editor, in this case a request on ] seems to fit the bill nicely as you will get a fairly quick response and I note that it has already been suggested during the discussion above.—] (]) 08:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :: Thanks ]. --] (]) 13:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have submitted it to ]. --] (]) 15:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, saying I was "wordy" is, I suppose, one way of admitting you didn't read what I was saying. I was responding to the arguments of my opponents with facts and logic, and in my view a good deal of patience. I did so at length because I repeatedly felt that they were not getting my point, and that I should therefore slice my logic more thinly to make it clearer. I'm sorry if any of them finds reading prose a strain. Perhaps, in that case, best find another interest apart from editing an encyclopaedia. As for 'assuming good faith', I think I am now entitled to say, as I have refrained from doing until now, that I haven't noticed much assumption of good faith on my part by my opponents, who have behaved from the start as if any fact I adduced was not to be trusted, because it came from me. I don't much care, being so used to this sort of thing that I barely notice it and am less disturbed by it than I perhaps ought to be. But I feel that will be obvious to any unbiased third party who reads this discussion. I am sorry Duncan's computer doesn't work properly, but this is outside my ability to fix. I am not sure quite where the pathos lies. I've managed to read that blog on a two-mile-an-hour dial-up link from Lahore, and via a state-censored computer in Burma, with a bit of ingenuity. I am told by Duncan of my intended addition that :"My view is that is not notable". Yes, that is his view, but on what is it based apart from his leftist political allegiance (which he doesn't trouble to conceal). This is as potent an argument as "because I say so". he then says that:"It would be out of line with the balance of the article", a statement whose meaning is not clear to me, and which may not actually be in English. What is this 'balance'? Who measures and determines it? Surely a fact's worthiness for inclusion is based upon its objective truth and its significance in relation to the subject, in which case it clearly belongs there. He then says :" it is not supported by a primary reference." But it is, unless, once again, he is assuming bad faith and dishonesty on my part. I have provided that reference, a quotation from Mr Ainwsworth's official spokesperson printed in a national newspaper and unchallenged since its publication. I have explained the convention under which journalists do not name government spokespersons, and offered to share that name with Duncan and RD232 on the same terms, should they feel it helps. I repeat the offer. I can be contacted via the switchboard of the Mail on Sunday. In his Humpty Dumpty way, Duncan then wags his finger at me to say :"One final point: A clandestine organisation is one which is secret in order to carry out illicit activities." Says who? Not, for example, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Not that dictionaries are or can be, definitive. They differ considerably. But Duncan writes as if the definition of the word that he personally gives (not even troubling to offer an authority for this) is in some way the only one, the right one, and so over-rides mine. I said 'clandestine' to mean secretive and anxious to avoid the limelight. I made no allegation of illegality. So why am I being told I did? Once again, who's assuming bad faith here? This is typical of Duncan's style of unresponsive non-argument. What he says is true and right, what other people say doesn't matter, or can be altered to suit him. And he has the nerve to lecture me on assuming good faith. RD232 says "failure to agree with you does not constitute unwillingness to debate". Nor did I ever say it was. But failure to read my arguments, clearly exposed, does, and so does repeated misrepresentation (to yourselves, since I know the position clearly) of what I am asking for, though I am glad to see that this at least is now at an end and my opponents understand and acknowledge what it is I have been asking for from the start. So, in my view, does a total unwillingness to offer even a hint of a willingness to compromise. RD232 and Duncan would both be pretty sore, much more sore than I am, I suspect, if anyone treated them the way they've treated me. But here they happen to be in the majority, and think they may do as they wish. Well, it's all a good argument in favour of Conservapedia, if nothing else. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The fact that you can't (at present) get your own way on Misplaced Pages is not an argument in favour of Conservapedia. Unlike in journalism, ], and bringing in others (as is now happening at ]) ensures that 2 out of 3 editors isn't a small-sample bias problem. Mmkay? Also, instead of again encouraging violation of ] (phoning the MoS switchboard!), you might do something constructive by getting the MoS to sort out your blog so it works in ]. PS responding to a criticism of being "wordy" with a 781 word comment is somewhat amusing. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], it's off-topic to touch on what ] does <s>at work</s> or does not do with his blog. <s>Let's keep it sweet.</s> He may not be able to influence what his paper does, or care to. --] (]) 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Edited ] (]) 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::Anyway, ]'s stated policy seems at least as restrictive as ours in this respect - see point 6 . ] (]) 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ], I can hear your frustration but there's no solution for you here unless you take the time to read our policies and debate in their contexts. Truth isn't enough: we are looking for things which not only true but are supported by references, are not out of balance with the article as a whole... which meet our policies. I feel that we're now at the point where no new references are coming into our discussion so, I can't think of much to add. The discussion on the meaning of clandestine is interesting, but not relevant. I didn't get your point about my computer not working, but thanks for the offer of help anyhow. --] (]) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have read the policies. Verifiable facts can and should be included. Duncan, whose grasp of the facts in this case is such that he appears to think my story was published in 'The News of the World', at least that's what he says at ], reiterates his incomprehensible rule about how truth and verification are not the point, which is that the fact I wish to include is somehow 'out of balance' with the article as a whole. As I say, I don't know what this means, and without further and better particulars will continue to translate it into English as "I don't want it there". I didn't begin the discussion of the meaning of'clandestine'. It was RD232's computer that doesn't seem to work. Sorry for mixing you two up. Can't think how I did that. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 17:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :], I made an honest mistake, corrected it and thanked you for the pointing out the error. By debating my opinions in terms of who I am, rather than the opinion itself, could be seen as an ''ad hominem'' construction by others. You might also want to read ]. --] (]) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As I don't know who Duncan is, I can't really debate his opinions in terms of who he is. In fact I'm not sure how one can make an 'ad hominem' attack upon a pseudonym. I know only his opinions, and that he doesn't necessarily pay very close attention to what I say, or to the facts in the case ( to confuse the 'Mail on Sunday' and the 'News of the World' seems to me to be a major error of fact, even if it is an honest error, whatever that means, especially in one so pernickety about what is and isn't factual, and about the meanings of words. It's and indicative of my complaint that my opponents in this matter haven't been paying attention to my arguments, or taking into account the facts I've placed before them. This, I suspect, is because they're not interested in them. Why not? I can only guess. I do think, by his own account, that I can reasonably assume Duncan is a man of the left and that he plays chess. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Who I am does not matter: don't go there. I suggest you read ]. In case you have not, perhaps also glance at ]. --] (]) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I've said my piece, and must leave it at that for now until my opponents actually start engaging with me instead of ignoring my facts, ignoring my arguments, hectoring me and ordering me about. Which is odd, when it is they who have a) removed material against my objections and b) refuse to insert material at my suggestion. I haven't touched the article. And if those who lecture me about Misplaced Pages rules (which like all other rules look different, depending on where and who you are) would examine their own conduct - especially their consistent failure to obey the injunction to assume good faith on my part, at any time in this discussion, they might be less keen to lecture me on mine. It is this fundamental unwillingnesss to trust what I say or to treat my published work as worthy of trust that lies at the base of their arguments, and what I regard as their wilful misunderstanding ( beautifully evidenced by the fact that after a week of debating with me and supposedly examining published matter from my newspaper, they didn't know what I was asking for and one of them didn't even know who I work for). I'm off now till August 9th, in the hope that others can achieve a compromise by then. I really do hope so, and beg any others to help this happen. If not, I shall insert the item as set out and referenced above. By the way, I should point out to my fastidious opponents that only one fact (the school he attended) in the 'Early Life' section of Mr Ainsworth's biography is sourced or verified in any way. I do hope, to demonstrate their consistency, that they will be applying the same rigour to the rest of this section as they have to the bit about the IMG. As it stands, RD232 really ought to be removing it. If he does, I'll support him. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 16:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's touching that you're so concerned about the quality of Ainsworth's WP entry, though you might have tried finding new sources yourself before suggesting material be deleted. At your prompting I've added some sources (I had already added one, which covered more of the Early history than you say above). However ] means that damaging info needs to be sourced to a higher standard, and also needs to be sourced ''before'' it can be added. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have said I have made my point and hope others can sort this out before the 9th August, when I shall reluctantly but certainly insert the item unless a good argument has been produced for excluding it (which it so far hasn't been), or unless(my strong preference) RD232 and Duncan have themselves inserted the item as suggested, or amended in acceptable and sensible way. But I cannot leave Duncan's last message unanswered. I havew been repeatedly lectured on how I am somehow breaching all kind of Misplaced Pages rules. Maybe i have, maybe I haven't, but what about my opponents? I have looked carefully at the pages both on 'outing' and on 'conflict'. I see absolutely nothing to suggest that I am threatening to 'out' anybody , impossible in any case since I do not know who they are. But I don't and wouldn't want to if I did. the accusation is both baseless and unjust. Why cannot he ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part? Once again, I am wondering if he is reading what I say with any care. Similarly, I am baffled as to what the 'conflict of interest', which he implies, might be. Alone of the contributors here ( as is my right) I have made my involvement in this matter, and my interest in it (such as it is) perfectly clear, as advised to do by Misplaced Pages. Why cannot he then ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part? My opponents have not declared any interest( as is their right) and presumably have no interest to declare. But if they did, how would anyone know? Rather than raise this possibility, which I could easily have done, I have ASSUMED GOOD FAITH. My main purpose has from the start been to ensure that the entry is true and accurate (without my original initiative, it would still say that Mr Ainsworth had been a 'candidate member' of the IMG, a statement which cannot be verified and ought to have been replaced by an accurate and verifiable statement of the facts now clearly established and confirmed by Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson. Nobody has ever given me any credit for this because nobody has ASSUMED GOOD FAITH on my part) . What seems to me to have distinguished the responses of both Duncan and RD232 is an unwillingness to ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part. In fact, had they ASSUMED GOOD FAITH on my part, we wouild by now have the matter resolved. They write all the time as if I'm up to something, have motives etc. Another editor, by questioning that I am who I say I am (elsewhere), has now joined in this general refusal to ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part. Why should I pretend to be someone I'm not, when I go to such lengths to say who I am? If other editors would follow their own code, and ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part, we would get a lot further, a lot more quickly. By the way, there exist several clear newspaper stories stating unequivocally and without a single inverted comma that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member' of the IMG. If the rigid, unmoving, mechanistic attitude of some editors were applied to these, they could be used as supporting verification for inserting such a statement in the article. This seems to me to be an argument against pettifogging rigidity, not an argument for inserting such a statement. Think on. Now I really am going away till the 9th. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :"there exist several clear newspaper stories stating unequivocally and without a single inverted comma that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member' of the IMG." that being the case, why have you never bothered to point us to them? (I haven't been able to find them myself.) PS I have always ] re your desire to include this info in Ainsworth's entry. My comments about the "smear" related to the published article which, without evidence, linked Ainsworth with IMG's support for the IRA. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Am I to have no peace? must I do it all for you? Google "Bob Ainsworth" and "Candidate member" and you come up with http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199283/political-cowards-true-heroes.html. Google fails to come up with another reference in the same paper(the Daily Mail is editorially separate from the Mail on Sunday) which I know to exist and currently cannot locate in any other way, though I should be able to do so in a couple of weeks if anyone cares. I have no idea what the source of their information is, but there has been no challenge to the statement from Mr Ainsworth, so far as I know, in the subsequent 17 days. I haven't bothered to point this out till now because (for about the nine millionth time of saying this) I am not, and never have been, arguing for the inclusion of the statement that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member'of the IMG. My aim is different ( see above, passim, over and over and over again). I have to write at length ('wordily') because my opponents, being so convinced of my bad faith and wicked intentions, wilfully misunderstand almost everything I say and seem to require every step of my logic to be explained in tiny detail. This slows things down a bit. A discussion with people who accepted my good faith and didn't treat every word and comma (and inverted comma) that I write with aggressive scepticism would be a lot swifter and a lot less 'wordy. And so, being anxious to seek a compromise, I oblige. The logic of my earlier comment was this. On the same standards which are being advanced to exlude reference to my account of Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson's statement, the story saying Mr Ainsworth was a candidate member should be admitted as verification. It's my opponents' logic, not mine. It just demonstrates how absurd their attitude is. I have stated my view as to what the entry should say. Lots of times. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 11:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :These personal attacks are getting tiresome - repeating that your opponents have not assumed good faith doesn't make it true no matter how often you say it. Thank you though for providing one other reference - finally. (I guess the many previous requests finally got through.) Several problems with that though. First, it's a comment piece without a byline (as far as I can see). Second, it predates your own comment piece in the same paper by just 6 days. Coincidence, given that the story had received zero coverage previously? A stretch. Third, drawing on your own work, we can see what is meant by "candidate member", which is attending a couple of meetings at the request of a friend, which brings us back to ]. Finally, just out of curiosity, your Mail piece claimed there were previous "stories". What were they? Or did you get the story from Misplaced Pages, and then choose to follow it up from there? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's no source cited in the article. Seriously, an unreferenced and unsigned debate piece is not enough, and it's doesn't support the claim you want to add, that he attended meetings. --] (]) 18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I know it doesn't. I didn't say it did. My article does however provie a verified source. Please do read what I write. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You've avoided this question several times before, so I'll ask again: "your Mail piece claimed there were previous 'stories'. What were they? Or did you get the story from Misplaced Pages, and then choose to follow it up from there?" Also, assuming one of them was the unsigned Mail comment piece a week earlier, , are you saying that piece was completely independent of yours? (Do you know, by the way, who the author is?) ] <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Another arbitrary break === | |||
| I find it useful to look at the sources in cases like this. I think this is a fair round-up of the sources claimed above (if not, please tell me) with the relevant bits quoted: | |||
| * : Mr Ainsworth was ironically once a candidate member of the International Marxist Group - which supported the IRA against British Army 'imperialism'. | |||
| * : "I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student. The source said: ‘A friend who was in the organisation tried to persuade him to join.’ I was sent a written statement asserting that Mr Ainsworth’s brush with the IMG ‘reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say’." | |||
| * : "When I sought more information about Mr Ainsworth's alleged links with the IMG, I talked to a 'spokesperson' who, after an unsatisfactory phone conversation, sent me a written statement. This is what it said: "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." | |||
| * : "Bob Ainsworth, who was previously tied in with the International Marxist Group" | |||
| The Morning Star piece is only reporting what other newspapers have said. The Mail piece is clear, but it's only one sentence. My feeling is that a throwaway one-line comment is probably not sufficient for a claim like this. The Hitchens pieces are better sources as they deal with this in detail, although it's difficult to pin down exactly what he means - who does the spokesman represent, what is the article he's talking about, is the source he talks about that of the article or his own source? I ''guess'' the spokesman is for the IMG. | |||
| There are two questions here. First, are the sources ] and clear enough to support this case? My opinion is that the statement from the IMG spokesman (assuming it is) would probably be reliable enough for claiming that Ainsworth attended a couple of IMG meetings, but this is a borderline case. Second, would including this information make the article biased by putting ] on relatively minor incidents. My opinion is that this is very minor: he didn't join the group or express agreement with their views. And it hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media - a Google News search shows a very small number of articles. | |||
| In conclusion, I don't think this is notable enough for inclusion, although this is a borderline case. --] (]) 00:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I agree with that general assessment. Note though that in the long and fairly circular discussion above, Hitchens said the spokesperson was for Ainsworth (I had the same impression it was IMG). I'm not sure what the source status of Hitchen's onwiki comments are (especially as I'm not aware of any external verification by Hitchens that Clockback is really his account); but it probably doesn't make much difference anyway whose spokesperson it is. It seems, eventually, to come down to this: from Hitchens blog and article it seems that Ainsworth was dragged to a couple of meetings by a friend and disagreed with everything they said. Is that significant enough for his encyclopedia entry? In itself I think not. Nor has there been enough media coverage to make the reporting of the issue in 2009 a significant enough media event. It's still ] to include it I think. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Summing Up === | |||
| I am now preparing, as promised, to add to the entry on Bob Ainsworth MP. In doing so, I will try to sum up the argument so far in its essentials. But first, to avoid all misunderstanding, these are the words ( and attached references) which I intend to add on Sunday 9th August unless a good reason is supplied for me to refrain, or unless someone else does it. I propose to place them in the ‘Early Life’ segment, after the sentence ending ‘Branch President’. I would, as I have repeatedly said, much prefer it if another editor could place it there. Arguments for doing so follow the suggested entry. | |||
| “In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this. <ref>{{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200583/PETER-HITCHENS-How-long-abort-old-too.html}}</ref> <ref>{{http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/07/the-defence-secretary-and-the-international-marxist-group.html}}</ref> <ref>{{http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/08/harry-patch-didnt-go-to-war-so-plodder-bob-could-give-the-orders.html}}</ref> <ref>{{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203111/It-better-boys-Defence-Secretary-Bob-Ainsworth-stayed-holiday.html}}</ref>” | |||
| 1. What is the dispute not about? It is emphatically not about whether Misplaced Pages can say that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’ of the International Marxist Group (IMG). The traceable source of this claim is a Misplaced Pages editor who emphatically declares that he will remain pseudonymous, and who has declined to reply to separate questions from editor Philip Cross and from me, asking him to verify the information he placed on Misplaced Pages some years ago. | |||
| 2. What is it about? It is about whether the brief statement above can be included in the entry. First, is it factually correct? Yes. Mr Ainsworth’s own spokesperson at the Ministry of Defence has said on the record that Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple of meetings’of the IMG. The references ( two from my ‘Mail on Sunday’ column, one from my blog, one from a ‘Daily Mail’ article by the historian Andrew Roberts which says Mr Ainsworth ‘flirted’ with the IMG) have been chosen because they do not refer to the so far unverified and possibly circular claim that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’. The ‘Daily Mail’ (editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) and the ‘Morning Star’ (even more editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) have published stories making this statement. Let us assume that they have their own sources, apart from Misplaced Pages, for saying so. But they do not cite them. Until they do, this doesn’t seem to me to count for verification. | |||
| 3.Is the inclusion of the information in Mr Ainsworth’s entry undue? Those who say that it is argue that it is a) trivial, b) a long time ago and c) not indicative of anything about Mr Ainsworth’s current politics. I ask them to apply the following simple test, which will recur in this argument. Would they say the same if we were discussing information (confirmed on the record and published in two newspapers of the Left) that a member of a Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet had attended National Front meetings in the same period? If so, then they can continue to insist that the matter is undue. If not, not. We are urged by Wikpedia rules to adopt a ‘Neutral Point of View’. I personally think this impossible, as we are all inevitably influenced in our selection and appreciation of facts by our own opinions, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. But we can choose to make a deliberate effort to set this influence aside as far as we may. I think on this occasion those who have opposed the inclusion of the information are the ones who need to make this effort of generosity and open-mindedness. | |||
| I also think some editors may, unconsciously, have allowed themselves to be influenced by the fact that the information appeared in newspapers they do not like under bylines they do not like, in a fashion they do not like. The mirror image of this would have happened had it concerned a senior Tory who had associated with the NF. It would not have made the information any less valid or worthy of inclusion. | |||
| They need to show how the nature of the source is relevant. The proposed addition contains no expression of opinion on the significance of Mr Ainsworth’s contact with the IMG. Those who check the references will find the words of Mr Ainsworth’s spokesperson, belittling the significance of the contact, cited in full. They will also find the list of the questions submitted to Mr Ainsworth about the matter, to which he chose not to reply. Readers may choose (as several editors do) to believe it does not matter if Mr Ainsworth attended these meetings. | |||
| However, Duncan’s comment (on the discussion page on 22nd July, 23.56) that “What I do know is that the reply of Ainsworth's people is accurate. You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate” is helpful to those who wonder if it matters. It is not, repeat not, verification that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’, but it seems to me (especially as it comes from an opponent of inclusion) to support the view that IMG meetings were not, like those of conventional political parties, open to all comers, and that attendance at them is considerably more significant than past attendance at Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat meetings. I should add that Mr Ainsworth was a mature adult at the time. The IMG was not a current within the Labour Party, as one contributor inaccurately assumes. It was a ‘Democratic Centralist’ disciplined organisation with its own rules, programme, leadership and structure, which from time to time encouraged its members to work within the Labour Party, and from time to time maintained a wholly separate existence. | |||
| Readers may equally choose to believe that it matters a little, or a lot. That is what factual information allows us to do. Not displaying it at all, when it exists, involves a political judgment that editors of Misplaced Pages are entitled to decide on behalf of others what established facts might or might not be important to them. | |||
| Mr Ainsworth is by profession a full-time politician. He is a Member of Parliament, whose vote can alter the fate of Bills, make and unmake the law of the land, send soldiers into battle, influence the spending (or non-spending) of billions of pounds. He has been an important mid-level member of the Blair and Brown governments for some years. He is currently a Cabinet member who can influence policy at a far higher level than most of us can dream of. He is a Privy Counsellor. He is Secretary of State for Defence, a responsible and contentious office. If he were a dentist, a road engineer or a space scientist, perhaps his political actions and associations in his late twenties or early thirties would be of no interest or significance. As it is, I think it would be very hard to maintain that they are of no interest at all. Nor can I see how the reference could be any briefer or plainer than I have made it above. | |||
| The question of reliability of sources has been raised. Here is what Misplaced Pages itself says about this : “Misplaced Pages articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made.” | |||
| Opponents of inclusion on these grounds need to state clearly and precisely what makes the sources quoted, and their authors, unreliable. It is no good just saying you don’t like them. | |||
| The discussions, on the Ainsworth entry and in BLP/N, have attracted several different points of view. That is why I am placing this suggested text in both those places. They have been discussed elsewhere on the web, though not by me, with one Misplaced Pages editor suggesting that my interest in this is obsessive. I think a concern to ensure that accurate facts are displayed on one of the most important research resources in the world is quite reasonable, myself. If we are not allowed to take such things seriously without being called names, what kind of society do we live in? Neither side can claim overwhelming support, and some editors with borderline views may revise their position if they read my second reference to the subject. | |||
| I submit that in any enterprise devoted to knowledge, the presumption must surely be in favour of the inclusion of any fact, rather than in favour of its exclusion. | |||
| Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've only just become aware of this dispute having noticed an edit with BA's name as a last edit at the BLP board. I'm of the opinion that now the subject is the holder of one of the traditional middle-ranking cabinet posts, the article needs expansion and in that context it will be worth a very brief mention. Considering that with the exception of the two god-bothering Prime Ministers, virtually all the New Labour dignitaries had Marxist backgrounds, I hardly think that it is a BLP risk to mention that a cabinet minister attended meetings of a group and decided not to join, provided that is clear that he rapidly lost all interest in them. Having material on the political evolution of a politician seems entirely appropriate.--] (]) 10:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Political evolution? He went to a couple of marxist meetings, didn't like it and went on to become a socialist labour mp which he still is today. That's it! It is not really evolution is it? I would be more happy to include a comment about it if the article was expanded, as it is at the moment, adding it to what is not much more than a stub would give the comment undue weight. (] (]) 10:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| == Expenses. == | |||
| This is misleading and untrue and should be removed or rewritten to more reflect the reality of what was actually voted on, the vote was not in reference to expenses at all. | |||
| Ainsworth was one of the 98 MPs who in 2007 had voted to keep MPs' expense details exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. | |||
| (] (]) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| :The vote was actually on ..exempting the house from the freedom of information act, which would of had the effect of keeping expense details private. (] (]) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| == Early life section == | |||
| In this pretty well totally uncontentious 4 lines of text there are to support this info..four citations and 3 citation required tags. | |||
| I removed them and they have been replaced, as it looks pretty well cited to me and there is nothing in the four lines that is disputed in any way, is there? Please explain what the issue is. Thanks. (] (]) 12:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| :The issue is simply that there is information there which is not attributable to the citations. It's important not to mislead readers about what is cited and what isn't, and for editors it's a signal that there's an issue. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are we getting a bit carried away here? What exactly is the disputed material? We are not required to cite every single word, for example..if it says he went to college from 1988 to 1990 then it is not a desperate comment is it? If dates are contentious then look for cites or remove the dates, I would like to clear this up with you. What exactually is disputed or uncited, start with one comment, the first cite required tag, | |||
| here it is... | |||
| (where he worked from 1971) | |||
| is the date in Q, or the fact that he worked there? It is totally irrelevent. Lets just say he worked there...in the seventies, for a while.... it is not contensious or disputed at all...so why the tags? (] (]) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| :The year is unsourced. It would also be unsourced if you changed it to "seventies". And the issue is not whether the material is "disputed", it's whether the cites back them up. We should not mislead readers into thinking the cites back up uncited material. If you'd rather remove it well that's a valid opinion, but I'd rather leave it and hope it acts as a signal so that a source will turn up. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, fair enough, put back the citation required and I will search for a citation to support it. Regards (] (]) 08:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| == Picture. == | |||
| Has anyone got a pic? Or can anyone from his homeland get one? (] (]) 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| ==RfC: Should Cabinet Minister’s past attendance at Marxist meetings be included in his biography?== | |||
| {{rfctag|bio|pol}} | |||
| Should Cabinet Minister’s past attendance at Marxist meetings be included in his biography? Peter Hitchens logged in as ] (]) 08:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The source for this is ]' '']'' blog ( - requires Internet Explorer) which quotes Ainsworth's spokesperson as saying "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." I consider that ] to include. Rd232 talk 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Note this has been discussed extensively by a couple of people above (section "Bob Ainsworth and the IMG" and they + some others at ]. It's a lot of background but may be worth skimming. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree, it is undue weight to insert what most would consider a negligable pinpoint in his life story.] (]) 10:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Perhaps he is a marxist, after all he went to two meetings a quarter of a centuary ago.. (] (]) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| *As stated on my one earlier post to this page, I think it is relevant to this politician's political development that he attended the meetings and was not attracted by what he saw. This is a contrast with very many New Labour ministers who actually went the whole hog and joined Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyite groupings in their youth. It therefore is relevant biography. As for the whole ] issue, the only reason that this appears a problem is that the biography is rather short for a senior politician. There is nothing at all on his published political views, for example, which for someone holding one of the second tier cabinet posts just below the three great offices of state is rather strange. Is he New Labour/Old Labour/Blairite/Brownite etc? I would expect some indication.--] (]) 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::With the exception of Peter cohen, it's just the same people again, one ofd them simply not taking the matter seriously at all, one giving a highly partial account of the controversy. Isn't the point of this that other editors join in? Newcomers to this discussion are advised to read the whole debate above, not the rather partial summary of the matter given by one contributor. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would request user clockback to stop referring to himself as peter hitchens without some kind of confirmation of his identity.] (]) 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I also dispute clockback's comment that I am not taking this seriously, I am taking it serious, do you think I would waste my time talking and resisting this edit if I wasn't serious? My comment, "Perhaps he is a marxist, after all he went to two meetings a quarter of a centuary ago" is a reference to my opinion that this comment that clockback wants to insert is undue weight.(] (]) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::"giving a highly partial account" - is that directed at my remark above giving the key quote from Hitchens' blog? That would seem pretty bizarre. (But then so is making accusations like that, instead of providing whatever balancing information is apparently missing.) ] <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::BTW, ]s run for 30 days, and it can take a while to get new people in (peter cohen isn't new either). ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| In answer to the above questions, if the cap fits, please do wear it. I have put this out for outside comment precisely because I am weary of opponents who will not argue reasonably or accept offers of compromise, but stand pat on their positions whatever happens. One opponent is utterly unwilling to shift an inch, despite having been refuted (in the correct sense of the word) over his initial objection that the information was not a verifiable fact. The crucial quotes, by the way,(and there are now two of them) appear on the blog but are in fact from my column published in the Mail on Sunday, which is reproduced each week on the blog, and most easily accessed on the web through the blog site. He lost that bit (so much so that he uses quotations from the article he once argued was not verification, in support of his case for excluding the information). Instead, he now clings to his own subjective view that, despite being true and verified, the matter is not important enough to include. The mere fact that I and several other contributors to this discussion wholly or partially disagree with him would seem to me to make the case for inclusion in some form, and suggest that we should now be arguing about how, rather than whether. This editor asserts that his objections are not politically motivated - but will interestingly not respond to requests to apply the same attitude to a comparable hypothetical case in which a Tory politician was in the same position. In the absence of a clear response to this repeated question, I am entitled to suspect that this is because, in such a case, he would be hot for inclusion. And I am also unable to see how I can get the argument any further with another editor who resorts to sarcastic heckling in response to careful, fact-based, patient and reasoned argument. By the way, what 'confirmation of my identity' would Mr Off2riorob accept, and how could I get it to him? I am not sure why it matters, or what reason he has to doubt it, but I am happy to help if I can. It seems to me that I am free to identify myself if I wish, and that there is no conceivable advantage to be gained by me in pretending to be someone I am not in this argument. On the contrary, it places me in an invidious position which I acknowledge, and which I could easily avoid were I to keep my identity a secret. Peter Hitchens, logged in as ] (]) 13:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:50, 11 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bob Ainsworth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 11 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
this is significant
this edit I have removed as opinionated speculation...
possibly motivated by political reasons related to internal Labour Party politics.] Twists that made Bob Ainsworth the least worst choice for the job
it follows this.... he got the job.....in what was considered by some to be "a surprise choice",
I left the first bit in and added...considered by some...because some people thought it was ok. The second bit is a bridge to far as regards to adding two and two and getting twenty two. The comments are all speculative and opinionated, ainsworth got the job, no one else was offered the post, so in that way, he was the first one offered the job and the only one actually offered the position,,, everything else is gossip and opinionated comment, Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
even the first bit that I respectfully left in is rubbish. ...this.....in what was considered by some to be "a surprise choice"
of course it was, this comment is from the conservative supporters, the tories think anything he does in to be ridiculed and he is to be ridiculed as much as possible, so we could add to the page.. the tories said he was rubbish. Are we here to add party political comment to a[REDACTED] biography? no we are not and I will resist it in all ways. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- " a surprise choice to be Defence Secretary in Gordon Brown’s June reshuffle" - Times;
- "Mr Ainsworth’s appointment in June caused some surprise at Westminster." - Telegraph
- "Mr Ainsworth's own suitability has been called into question following his surprise elevation to the job during last month's emergency cabinet reshuffle." - BBC
- "To the surprise of many observers, Bob Ainsworth, a cheerful but pedestrian junior defence minister, was asked to step up to replace Hutton as defence secretary" - Guardian (and again - first line of Ainsworth 5 June 09 profile! )
- "eyebrows were raised at the jobs for the moustachioed Bob Ainsworth as Defence Secretary - promoted beyond his means" - The Herald
as my words "possibly motivated by political reasons related to internal Labour Party politics", that seems perfectly reasonably backed up by the Times story . What does anyone else think? Rd232 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is enough to leave what is left there now. You can't say...possibly...bla bla....it is speculation and has no place here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well the "possibly" was a qualifer I added because there was only one source. The source is quite definite, and not speculative. Rd232 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can see in these citations you present...surprise,,surprise.. and I left that comment in the article. What I left is strong, simple and clear. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone else wondering about the relationship between offtoriorob and Ainsworth? All offtoriorob has done is attempt to soften the profile: he has claimed that the comment "At this time he attended several International Marxist Group meetings before deciding not to continue his interest in the group" is contentious, when it is anything but. Ainsworth has confirmed on the record that he attended meetings (as has Mustafa Bevi), and that he decided not to pursue his interest. Offtoriorob has also attempted to remove citations from the Daily Mail; and he is now attempting to make out that Ainsworth was the first-choice for Defence Secretary, and that any source which claims otherwise is a conservative conspiracy. I think there are some credibility issues here.Chrisp728 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Off2riorob has nearly 7000 edits on a wide variety of pages ; you have 8, all on Talk:Bob Ainsworth. Please do not make casual accusations. For example he has not attempted to make out that Ainsworth was first choice, merely questioned the basis for saying concretely that he wasn't. Nor did he use or imply anything relating to "conspiracy". As for your allusion to Mustafa Bevi - his comments here on this talk page are interesting but have no status as a reliable source. Rd232 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you rd232, edit conflict..Well, I respect your comments, let me try and reply to a couple of them, Ainsworth was the first and only person to be actually offered his job. I am not here to soften Ainsworths profile, I have worked towards the insertion of the verifyable comment that he went to meetings of this group..I am for neutral encyclopedic articles. I dislike opinionated speculation presented as if fact, I am a good guy, honest. I am against any insertion of this couple of meetings but I have worked towards and assisted in an insertion.Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but just go back to the Times article a moment and consider again whether it can be described as "speculation". It's also not talking about others being actually offered the job, it's about others being considered. I think that is significant, not speculation, and from a WP:RS. Maybe it could be qualified by explicitly attributing it to the Times, but I think it belongs in the entry, because the appointment to Defence Sec is so significant in Ainsworth's career that circumstances of it are important. Rd232 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you rd232, edit conflict..Well, I respect your comments, let me try and reply to a couple of them, Ainsworth was the first and only person to be actually offered his job. I am not here to soften Ainsworths profile, I have worked towards the insertion of the verifyable comment that he went to meetings of this group..I am for neutral encyclopedic articles. I dislike opinionated speculation presented as if fact, I am a good guy, honest. I am against any insertion of this couple of meetings but I have worked towards and assisted in an insertion.Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Off2riorob has nearly 7000 edits on a wide variety of pages ; you have 8, all on Talk:Bob Ainsworth. Please do not make casual accusations. For example he has not attempted to make out that Ainsworth was first choice, merely questioned the basis for saying concretely that he wasn't. Nor did he use or imply anything relating to "conspiracy". As for your allusion to Mustafa Bevi - his comments here on this talk page are interesting but have no status as a reliable source. Rd232 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone else wondering about the relationship between offtoriorob and Ainsworth? All offtoriorob has done is attempt to soften the profile: he has claimed that the comment "At this time he attended several International Marxist Group meetings before deciding not to continue his interest in the group" is contentious, when it is anything but. Ainsworth has confirmed on the record that he attended meetings (as has Mustafa Bevi), and that he decided not to pursue his interest. Offtoriorob has also attempted to remove citations from the Daily Mail; and he is now attempting to make out that Ainsworth was the first-choice for Defence Secretary, and that any source which claims otherwise is a conservative conspiracy. I think there are some credibility issues here.Chrisp728 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll have a good look at the cites. I dislike all that, according to speculation commented written by jonny from the times. No one was at the meeting and there has been no official comment regarding it. In my opinion he has been promoted to the job and we should respect that, not start with, jonny was first choice but he couldn't get it so harry was second choice but this faction didn't like him so the position must have been given to bob to appease the unions according to the gossip and the point of view at the times tea room. Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"Off2riorob has nearly 7000 edits on a wide variety of pages" but Rd232 how can number of edits be a criterion in deciding if an editor is good or not? Perhaps a consideration of the number of edit wars an editor has been involved in or the number of times an editor's account has been blocked by administrators would be better indicators. In my exchange with Off2riorob re: Ainsworth's over-promotion (now no longer in doubt and backed up by a variety of references from the BBC to the Guardian) he clearly did not show good faith, was at times rude, and was obsessive about cutting out anything negative about "Bob" (as he calls him). He also made a number of good points, particularly about use of language (which I acknowledged and have learned from). But overall my impression was that he does not have a neutral position when it comes to this subject.Jprw (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is not Off2riorob's general quality as editor ("good or not"); I was merely responding to Chrisp's insinuation here of a connection between off2riorob and Ainsworth, to which the long edit history elsewhere is highly relevant. As to neutral position: it is pretty rare for editors on political topics not to have a position. The issue is how this impacts on their editing and discussion, and their ability/willingness to follow policy and consensus. Anyway, further discussion of Off2riorob, if it's required, should take place elsewhere. Meanwhile, some of your own remarks ( "clearly did not show good faith", "obsessive about cutting out anything negative" ) are also problematic. Rather than conduct endless postmortems, let's either return to the substance of any outstanding issues, or just leave it here. Rd232 12:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion of me on this board should stop now, take it to a complaint board. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Having a look at the times piece, it is speculation almost all of it. We have the simple clear statement that it was a suprise to some that he was appointed...
I also note this from the times article......
"Mr Ainsworth, then Armed Forces Minister, had been in the running from the off. It is likely that he was Mr Hutton’s recommendation as he offered continuity. Ms Kennedy’s departure and Mr Brown’s weakened position meant that the Prime Minister was no longer in a position to resist an appointment that would satisfy both defence chiefs and Labour MPs". Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Speculation" is about events in the future; I guess you mean "gossip" or something. But the Times article seems to be based on leaks ("senior figure"), not (merely) the fevered imaginings of a journalist. The above would be a relevant part of the story too. I don't think a sentence or two about the appointment would be undue. Rd232 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Speculation can also be about events in the past. Not speculation? there where no announcements, no one said anything about it! When I say speculation I mean a couple of people get together and get their opinions and anything they have heard and add that together and make it into a story, and here is the story, story being the optimum word, well, if you really think it will be beneficial to the article, knock something up and attribute it as ..it has been summised, it has been suggested, according to supposed leaks, or something along those lines and we will also need to add the comment I posted above to balance.. also be careful not to coatrack anyone else, Gordon Brown, for example, or the chaotic shuffle on to this biography. Personally I think it adds nothing.. but hey..regards Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- According to supposed leaks from a an unnamed so called senior figure that is in the know....Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought: I think this discussion suggests an interesting conflict between the apparent value of media/news reporting and 'official comment' with respect to inclusion in WP. Sir Humphrey Appleby often (reliably) informed us as to the origin of leaked political stories, whose source could not be named. And likewise we all know that official statements, such as the existence of WMD, should not be believed and are about as reliable George Wickham's word and Alan Duncan's genuine hardship. I'm sure there exists all shades of truth and politic in between those extremes but the Boothby scandal teaches us how both sources can be compromised by political pressure such that we can only strive to sift through all possible information and ultimately use our own judgement to reflect the truth. However, it does seem to me that there is a greater threat/caution to journalists than there is to politicians - Tony Bliar was not impeached and roams free and making money to this day. Newspapers can issue a retraction you might need a magnifying glass to spot but who tends to be the biggest liars or vehicles of truth? It's a tough one, I know. Mimi 13:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Replied on mimi's talk. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
you messed up my edit.
You upset the link, so I reverted to my comment. All my comments are from the link, well cited comments, so it is good to add well cited comments at this point the article is in need of expansion.Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE. And why did you post this twice? See my reply above. Rd232 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Duncan changed "several meetings" to "a few meetings" . I prefer "several" - sounds better to me. And "a few meetings" also sounds like a larger number (the original spokesperson quote was "a couple of meetings"). Rd232 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Several is more than a few. Since couple is in the reference, I will change the edit to say that.--Duncan (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Several is more than a few." - I guessed that was your opinion, but I think the opposite! "a couple" is fine. Rd232 09:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Not notable events or reports
In the long term reality of a biography, actually even in the short term this new addition is of no value..
"In December 2009, Ainsworth announced that he would have been more circumspect about supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq had he known that Saddam Hussein did not in fact have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal."
If you asked each and every MP this question they would all say the same thing. It is meaningless. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixing MiszaBot archiving
The template for MiszaBot at the head of this page was sending old threads over to Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive %(counter)d, which is clearly the wrong place. I think MiszaBot has a security feature that disallows targets which are not subpages, most of the time. I fixed that. I hope someone will have the patience to sort out two incorrect archivals which occurred, one on 20 August and the other on 15 December. These are the only two times that MiszaBot has run, and the threads were copied to /dev/null both times. Also a proper archive box should be created. EdJohnston (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- That should do it. —WWoods (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
POV?
How come there is no mention of all the criticism Ainsworth has received as Defence Secretary? (92.3.129.31 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC))
- I for one will easily wonder what is the reason that the HMS Endurance deserves have a repair bill atleast 5 times larger than the amount of money HMS Roebuck is sold for. A major reason for the repair bill is that a crewmember allowed the boat almost to sink, and the MoD (Ainsworth was the Minister/Secretary at that time) has yet not been looking for someone responsible. The Royal Navy is answerable to the Government, but that does not excuse any MP from doing a good job.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles