Jump to content

Talk:Anne Milton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bloggerheads

There seems to be a dispute over whether to include the mention of Tim Ireland and his blog, and the subsidiary question of how to mention his claim of Anne Milton's alleged conflict of interest. Perhaps we can debate it here? In my mind the blog is highly significant and should be mentioned because it is unusual to find a blog specifically targeted against a particular MP. (Probably unlucky for Anne Milton to find herself with the highly active and motivated Tim Ireland as a constituent).

The conflict of interest case is more difficult because it does not seem that any laws or rules have been broken, and the blog is clearly not a reliable source. However, I think that it can be worded in such a way as to be neutral and informative. What do others think? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I certainly doubt that specific allegations are worthy of conclusion except as part of a long and comprehensive article, otherwise they're given undue weight. It may be worth mentioning the blog in passing as Milton has commented on its existence, and if this is done it makes sense to link to it. If it isn't mentioned in the article, the link itself may not meet WP:EL as it doesn't particularly expand or supplement encyclopedic content. I realise I'm fence-sitting... —Whouk (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse my thread-waste (below). The entry has been edited again and the words 'cyber stalker' have been used again. If you don't mind, as I've said my piece, I plan to stay out of this and allow more experienced editors to deal with the matter. - Miltox 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the outright deletions that get me down

I've been perfectly happy with factual/balanced corrections made by more seasoned editors in that I don't think the entry should be drowned in every allegation made at the Anne Milton weblog. (There are many.)

But recent edits made primarily from inside the Houses of Parliament have involved complete removal of any mention of the weblog. (I apologise for my recent facetiousness regarding this matter, BTW. [1])

And the fact remains that - as much as this MP would like to deny it - this weblog plays a significant role in her professional life. The role it played during the election was reported on by The Times twice over:

Battle of the Guildford gals

A strange case of espionage and warfare inside the commuter belt


It also needs to be recognised that the listing for another female MP Sarah Teather also has a link to an unofficial weblog. Even Tony Blair has an entry with two links/references to a campaign to impeach him.

I think the weblog is significant, and I think the persistent attempts of parties unknown to wipe any reference to it from this entry is a testament to that significance.

Miltox | 16:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Compromise?

Perhaps a compromise might be reached by which just the bloggerheads link might be included. As I have made clear elsewhere, if denigration of one elected representative is allowed in the manner attempted here, activists are going to "pile in" wrecking their opponents entries everywhere, and how could you then argue that they should not?

Hengis

PS. Sorry, somehow I have altered this page and now cannot re-edit it back. Perhaps I should have spent some time in the sandpit.

Hengis

This sounds fair, but shouldn't that link be put into context or included in the entry iself? How is the following for a draft?
During the election campaign, Milton became the subject of a (neutral-but-accurate one-word description) weblog by online activist Tim Ireland. Since its inception, this weblog has been dismissed by the MP as the efforts of "an angry young man" [2]
Miltox | 16:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the compromise of linking just to bloggerheads.com isn't as factually useful, as linking to the /anne_milton folder within it. A suggestion to Tim Ireland is perhaps to actually take out a specific Anne Milton domain name which would make it easier for the purposes of Wikipedia and search engines. For example, www.annemiltonblog.com . Thank you.

I restored the bit about the allegation on Tim Ireland's blog that this Wikipedia entry has been edited from within the parliament. I believe it to be significant enough enough to warrant mention in this encyclopaedia. If Milton had acknowledged Ireland, be he as angry as he may be, it means that he deserves such acknowledgement; and if it is true that this entry was edited through a parliamentary IP address, then it implies something about Milton or her colleagues. Cockneyite 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Tim Ireland's unsubstantiated and malevolent link, we can't have this sort of thing in Wikipedia, it reduces the resource to a partisan platform and where are we then? I am astonished that the editors even considered the linkage. Regarding Cockneyite's implications, it's all supposition and comment not provable fact. Should Wikipedia become someone's weapon for their 'anger' at a third party and vicious personal attacks? No, I think not. Oh, and before there is yet another conspiracy theory about the edit, i am not connected to Westminster, the Guildford Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or a supporter of Sue Doughty. twobells 19:36 28 August 2006

Am in agreement with twobells, which is why I have been forced to remove the text from the wikipedia entry. Having consulted the wikipedia code, this is the only conclusion that can be made. The edits should remain offline until it has been fully discussed here. I will defer to anyone who has anything further to add. anon

Recent Developments

Someone recently reverted my balancing edits, claiming 'reverted after 'fair' revision that was obviously skewed toward the personal'. The whole Tim Ireland blog on Anne Milton is of a personal nature. I did no more than highlight bothsides of the argument. This seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me (and I am sure many other wikieditors.) The Ireland links have been maintained while providing balance. anon


get over yourself. you attempted to inject your own opinion under the guise of balance. the milton blog is only 'personal' when it borders on satire, while you quoted an obviously satirical bio out of context because you're taking this far too personally

Sorry, 'fraid I don't agree. You have just removed all my edits including the good work that Anne Milton has done in the constituency. Did that need to be removed for example? You seem to be the only one attempting to inject your opinion. I have merely tried to reflect both sides of the dispute. If a local critical comment is to be added, then surely a local praiseworthy section should also be added. It is also worth adding in a little bit of Ireland history which gives readers a fairer idea of the man behind the blog so to speak. anon

I have problems with the paragraph about Tim Ireland.
"this is not an uncommon tactic", got any sources? And just seems to be a justification of the tactic.
The use of guns 'is not an uncommon tactic' to kill people, that doesn't make the use of guns justified.
"On his own website, Ireland describes himself as having "a bitterness that pollutes the core of his being to this very day." " Is this relevant?
"not an ordinary voter or member of the public either having described himself as "not a big Tory fan"" I'm 'not a big tory fan' either, I'm still a member of the public. Naming Tim Ireland as the blog author should be sufficient, it is clear on his page that he is an activist. As the link supporting this is on someone else's blog, can you be sure Tim Ireland said that?
"not an active member of any political party" The 'active' insinuates he is a member of a party and just doesn't make it known. He claims not to be a member of any party, I think that can be taken at face value. (Put "claims not to be a member" if you like).
"shows bias toward the Liberal Democrat end of the political spectrum in his highly personal viral campaigns."
This is just plain opinion and I'm going to remove it. You can't make that kind of claim without substantiating it.
Sam Hayes 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Also added link to Tim's blog, if theres a link to a positive website (guildford conservatives) then there should be a link to a negative site. Sam Hayes 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the edits Sam Hayes has made thus far. With regard to "a bitterness..." quote about Ireland, it is relevant in the sense that it backs up the Milton quote of an "angry young man."

With regard to Sam's comment about not being a tory fan - the whole Anne Milton Tim Ireland run weblog is complaining that Anne Milton's literature uses people who are politically biased, as if they are not. Therefore, if it is relevant that Anne Milton uses Tory activists in her campaign literature (that could be potentially seen as ordinary members of the public) then it is relevant that Ireland is not an entirely unbiased normal member of the public either. Ireland's internet dealings are extensive, so I am sure we could probably find a better quote than this - but that one is sufficiant for now.

The 'not an active member of any political party' edit that Sam has made seems perfectly fair.

Ireland's whole political stance is to the left of Labour's and shares much in common with that of the Lib Dems. Just have a look at his bloggerheads weblog and you will see.

The whole point about this argument/wikipedia entry is this: Tim Ireland has been editing and using this page as a political means to attack Anne Milton. On wikipedia, this is unacceptable. He has attempted to revert numerous edits without any justification because he has now discovered he does not like being on the other end of the boot when people attempt to balance his one sided comments. anon

However, I do not agree that Tim Ireland's blog needs a specific mention in the links. It is linked only as a source to critical comments not for any other reason. The Guilford association website is an official website associated with Anne Milton. anon

The blog is the subject of an entire section, I think that is a pretty good reason to have a link to it. The fact that Tim's opinions match some of Lib Dem's policies isn't evidence that he is biased towards them. Being biased against Anne Milton and Labour(TB mainly) is very different to being biased for the Lib Dem's. I think the version as it is makes clear that Tim doesn't like Labour or the Tory's, not that I think that should make a great deal of difference. If we've got consensus on the current version then it should be left for the time being, there has been too much messing around on what is a very minor article about a very minor tory MP. Sam Hayes 18:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


I don't see how this entry can stay as it is. It's been structured to read as "Anne Milton is a really really nice person and a really really good MP, so please ignore the weblog that almost everybody else ignores because the person who writes it is mentally unbalanced"
But, considering recent activities by supporters of Anne Milton, we can be grateful that they didn't add "and quite possibly a child molester" [3]
This whole fuss began with the continued removal of the link to the Anne Milton weblog by a person using the British Parliamentary IP range (and this most recent editor, upon getting away with his latest edit, added the final flourish of the removal of the link to the Anne Milton weblog)
All of the significant edits, apart from vandalism that the Anne Milton weblog made very clear was unacceptable, have revolved around the removal of this link.
The new content (that seeks to boost Anne Milton's reputation and undermine that of the author of the weblog - why is this in a Wikipedia entry? at all?) offers no citation beyond that for a single quote taken out of context.
I'm reverting this to the last version by Whouk, and would suggest that further discussion take place before any further edits are made.

Sorry, Tim (because I believe it is you) but . You have continued to removed an attempt to balance the evidence that Anne Milton has been praised rather than solely criticised by your weblog. The whole fuss began with Tim Ireland/whoever adding in the link. The links to his blog as sources are fair enough. They can stay. However, a separate link at the bottom of the page is not applicable since there is no justification for having that link there since it has already appeared as a source. If you can find a quote for Tim Ireland saying the opposite to 'an angry young man' please feel free to add in...


"The whole fuss began with Tim Ireland/whoever adding in the link."
No it didn't, the link was added 5 September 2005 [4]
It stayed there until June 22, 2006 [5] when someone from Anne Milton's office became aware of the Wikipedia entry when the 'irrelevant' blog pointed out that it had been vandalised [6]
How is the blog irrelevant when Milton's own staff use it as a source of information? Also, this 'biased' weblog also objected to this and other vandalism [7]
After that, there were repeated attempts to remove the link [] from Parliament and then a range of differing IP addresses from 'different' people with exactly the same aim - to put the link into 'context' or remove it entirely
This whole fuss began - and continues - because someone from Anne Milton's office objects to the link and seeks to use Wikipedia as a battleground.
Oh and I found that "angry young man" link you wanted [8]

Going to admit that it's you Tim?


Hello Dennis Paul. Goodbye, Dennis Paul [9]

This has become utterly ridiculous. Pro Sue Doughty elements want comments and a link denigrating Milton in, and (unsurprisingly) Milton supporters want it out. All that is happening here is politicking, pure and simple. I say this to those who believe they are assisting Sue Doughty in her cause to recover the Guildford constituency. What are you going to do if someone sets up a critical blog about her and then links her Wikipedia entry to it?

Milton is, to quote an anti-Miltonite, "a very minor tory (sic) MP". True. So why is it necessary to have any comments or links that claim she is either good or bad? She doesn't warrant anything other than a brief article as to who she is and no more.

Hengis 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


"Pro Sue Doughty elements want comments and a link denigrating Milton in" - Be careful. This is an unsubstantiated allegation by the Milton supporters. All of this fuss is about Milton supporters wanting the link out. It's relevant and it belongs.


Wow, am I a anti-Miltonite now? Hengis, I agree completely, get rid of the local comment section altogether, lock the page and let people make up their own minds, Tim's blog is the no.1 search result in google for Anne Milton so its not as if criticism is hard to come by. Sam Hayes 23:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Sue Doughty supporter, if you care to check the edits, you will see that I have not sought to delete either the Ireland link or the negative comments about Milton.

It is a question of "sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander". You can't insist on negative comments/links being included and then argue on spurious grounds that favourable comment is precluded, without looking completely ridiculous.

I hope you are not trying to suggest that you are a totally dispassionate member of the internet community, because that just does not wash. You have defended the anti-Milton edits too vociferously.

Be careful? What of? Fair comment is not actionable.

If you don't mind, I'll sign off now - I have a life.

Hengis 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

October 2006

That's it, I am removing the entire 'local comment' section, I bring to both the readers and editors attention the policy on Biographies Of Living Persons and suggest the link breaks at least two rules. It's a real shame as much of the piece was well-written but we cannot have politicking on a factual website, as for that awful personal attack and spurious 'link's' suggesting Westminster collusion again i state it has no place on Wikipedia, all this seems to do is allow this Ireland character more steam and undue attention, just notice the glee with which he links any mention of his behaviour to this site. I have to agree with Hengis, this is getting out of hand, very personal and must stop now.

TwoBells - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't entirely agree with that. The weblog is notable in connection with Anne Milton: it has got national publicity. As long as it isn't elevated into something more than it is (a disaffected and highly politicised local who has a beef against their MP, not a serious political criticism), then it should stand. And the section you deleted has other references as well.
PS please sign your talk page posts with the special form "~~~~", which will add your signature and the date and time. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, the weblog is notable only in it's actual existance, the very brief national publicity made via one newspaper during a general election made no mention of any of Ireland's specific claims and cannot be proved anyway, all the article did was suggest that Ireland had claims, not that the paper agreed with or could prove them as this is a factual site the deletion should stand. I have as well for balance removed the Guildford Conservatives link. What is extremely interesting is the speed with which my deletion was noted by certain parties, comment or conspiracy? Oh, and my tilde key was broken, had to find another kb [is that a factual statement or supposition?] Twobells"09:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)"

I don't think you understand linking policy. Of course articles have to be neutral, but they can describe debates, and then link to sites which take clear stances on them, so long as they are relevant to the issue. Linking policy says "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link". Having mentioned Tim Ireland's blog in the text, a link to it (not inline, but separate at the end of the article) is really needed to explain the context and allow readers to investigate it for themselves; we just have to make sure we don't mislead readers that the blog is neutral reportage or a reliable source. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fys, I am sorry but I think it's you who doesn't understand linking as regards the Policy For Biographies Of Living Persons. I do understand you are trying to be balanced, however I do feel uncomfortable with the link as again I feel it breaks policy. Twobells 09:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

December 2006

Well, we're back again. I don't see any reason to add a long justification for why the weblog should be mentioned in the text, and once mentioned should be linked to, after what I and others have said on this page. I'm happy with the article as it stands now. I'm unhappy with excising the mention and link entirely. I still consider such an edit to be content-removal vandalism. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, what's the point of mentioning the thing in the text, discussing the context and content, and then removing the link? If it's worthy of mention, then readers should be able to read it for themselves. Per WP:EL, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" are linkable. The section you cite is headed "links normally to be avoided"; the operative word being "normally". Having mentioned the link in the text is an abnormal situation, I submit. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
We mention the dispute, with a reliable source. If people want to go beyond what the reliable source says about the issue and see the attacks for themselves then they can follow the link to the Tim Ireland article, where it can be linked (per WP:EL). But you are reversing the burden of proof: as the editor seeking to include the link, it is up to you to justify it. You are adamant that the blog is not a source for the text, which is just as well since attack blogs are not acceptable as sources, so there is no pressing reason to include it. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, as you've now entered the editing discussion, you've to stop pretending to act as an admin. Secondly, how on earth can a website about Anne Milton written by Tim Ireland be linkable from Tim Ireland but not Anne Milton? If it is linkable in principle (which, by having a link in Tim Ireland, you clearly consider it is) then it is appropriate to link from the subject. I don't know why you're wittering on about burden of proof, but it's certainly not in response to anything I've written. And why on earth mention the source issue when you go on to admit that I've been absolutely consistent about it from the very start (see top of page)? What I do want is a flavour of the contents of the blog, for example the claim that Anne Milton used pictures of active Conservatives in her literature in contexts which suggested they were members of the public. That's not a libellous accusation. Every political party does it. The reason that should be mentioned is that it shows to the reader the useful information that the blog hasn't actually uncovered anything criminal or even (I suggest) particularly underhanded. It's political knockabout, albeit with a particular punch. The blog is notable because there is no other MP who has such a blog following their actions which has continued to be updated. ("Sarah Teather is my MP" seems to have ended in July). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't "pretending" to act as an admin, I was acting as an admin. That would be why the "block user" link worked.
You have an itchy block finger and if I had my way it would be chopped off. But I digress; the point is that you have now become a participant in an editing dispute and are acting as an editor not an admin. You should not use your admin powers in relation to this dispute. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Either the blog is an attack, and should not be linked, or it's trivial political knockabout, in which case... it should not be linked per WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
Not so. You seem to be falling into the well-known logical fallacy "Fallacy of the excluded middle" there. The notability of the blog comes about because 1) it is the single known case of a blog opposing a current MP which has been continually updated; 2) it has been covered in the national press; 3) it has prompted the MP concerned to view its author as having stalked her. The contents of the blog are not particularly relevant. Also, and very much an obiter remark in this case, I do not understand your distinction between "attack blog" and "trivial political knockabout". I would describe the latter as inevitability encompassing the former. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, though - you gave the distinct impression that it was the fact of Ireland's having had a go at her which you thought was important. Turns out that it's linking to Ireland's blog that matters to you. That's a bit more of a problem for me. Blogs should not be linked unless they are either being used as reliable sources (which in this case it definitely is not) or they are the official blog of the subject (which this is not). Link it from Tim Ireland and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've always made the case that it is the fact of the existence of the blog which is the key issue, but that having once mentioned its existence, it becomes ludicrous not to link to it. Perhaps this is another case where you make unwarranted assumptions about motives. A blog is in any case never a reliable source (you seem to think it might be). And I still don't understand how the blog is a valid external link from Tim Ireland but not from Anne Milton. The same logic applies so it is either valid for both or for neither. And there is no absolute restriction on linking to blogs, nor on linking to blogs critical of the subject of the article. I would prefer if the link text said something like "Tim Ireland's highly critical blog". Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is another case of you assuming bad faith. I am pretty consistent in my approach to WP:LIVING articles, I think; we need good sources (which in this case we have, in the shape of the Times) and we have no pressing need to rub the subject's face in something. The incident is covered in neutral terms, if people want to find the blog it's trivially easy. There is a world of difference between "A blogger attacked her, she dismissed it" and "a blogger attacked her, look! here's the attack!". I would like to see some better reasons for going against the link and biography guidelines than "it's ridiculous". Guy (Help!) 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not against either guideline. As I understand it, your position is now that mention of the blog is acceptable, a link to it is not, however a link is acceptable from Tim Ireland. I do not see the internal logic of this argument. Perhaps the mailing list will be able to discern it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno what's going on here but my twopenn'orth is that it's worth mentioning the blog simply because it adds colour to the article, but don't take it too seriously. Good idea to link to it if mentioned, then people can read it for themselves. "We report, you decide" as someone says. The Golux 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Election & attack blog

So, we have a short mention in the press as a bit of local colour during the election, one of several amusing but trivial bits of electioneering nonsense in that article, which is itself one of a series. Relevance to current activities: none. The election is over. Removal is not, as Fys characterises it, "unjustified deletion against consensus", it's removal with a stated justification (hence absolutely not unjustified) and there was no "consensus", there were various opinions, so it's absolutely not "against consensus". Also that discussion was in the context solely of the blog, not of the whole para.

Since the onus is on the editors seeing to include content, to justify its inclusion, and it has been removed for stated reasons, we clearly need to establish here whether there is in fact a consensus that we should include a para noting that there was one brief mention in the electoral coverage of a dispute between Milton and a single constituent. I'd say that is trivia. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The election is over but the blog isn't. It is one of the few continuing blogs referring to a sitting MP from a critical position (Kate Hoey also has one, but I can't find any others). In any case - the English Civil War is over, so can we delete Oliver Cromwell? Meanwhile the statement that "there are various opinions" is a classic of its kind. Yes there are, but only yours is supporting deletion of the section. The consensus of opinion is to include it. And you misused admin powers to rollback. Resign. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
But as the thread on the mailing list showed, the blog is not really relevant other than in the context of the trivial mention. Can you show ongoing press coverage for the dispute, outside the passing mentions during the election? And can you be absolutely certain that your opinion is not coloured by your being a Labour activist and Milton being a Tory MP? Guy (Help!) 11:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your last point, yes. Contrary to your prejudices, politics doesn't work like that. Personal likes and dislikes have no direct relation to partisan affiliations. There are even some Lib Dems that I like personally. Not you, though. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded by your reasoning Guy, and I'm not a Labour councillor. Are you sure that your opinion is not coloured by your history of disputes with Fys/Dbiv?Catchpole 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No I can't, but since that history relates almost exclusively to this article and his reaction to being blocked for edit warring on it, it's probably not relevant: my view on the content was formed before I knew anything of Fys, his ArbCom sanction or his loss of the Sysop bit for edit warring on a political biography. I acknowledge that my recent experiences with the likes of Lance Armstrong have made me less tolerant of attacks and other innuendo in WP:LIVING articles. I believe that this is in keeping with the general mood in the Foundation; as I see it, controversial information should not be included if we can't show that it is generally considered significant. This applies to all WP:LIVING articles. One thing for clarity: I have never supported the Tories and likely never will. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"What slish is this?" I thought it was all settled?

The Golux 11:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What was settled was that there were some people who thought that if we discussed the Times story we should also link the blog. I don't think we should discuss the Times story, since it appears to be discussed primarily in order to justify a link to the attack blog. I don't see any evidence that there is ongoing media coverage of that attack blog, so I don't see that there is independent evidence that it is considered significant in the life of Anne Milton by reliable secondary sources. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing current coverage which shows that this is widely considered of ongoing significance. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Tim Ireland is a man who appears to like to pursue his vendettas, as can be seen on his blog, which consists entirely of attacks on other people. That he continues, from time to time, to post petty smears does not make it notable or worthy of mention. Part of the issue is that he is an internet obsessive rather than say a writer of letters and so his attacks are highly accessible for inclusion here. That they are online does not make them notable. Incidentally, it appears likely that Tim Ireland created the article on himself here [10], and also added in a lot of links to his website on this page. Nssdfdsfds 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Miltox is definitely not Tim Ireland! Miltox added libellous stuff about Tim Ireland, IIRC. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? He created the Tim Ireland article, which seems flattering towards him. His other edits such as "Someone appears to be censoring this page to save Anne Milton embarrassment. The earlier entry regarding the weblog was factually correct and had links to articles to prove it." Other edits include "[Anne Milton's] hobbies include gardening, running, reading and censoring her Wikipedia listing. ", and "During the election campaign, Milton became the subject of an investigative weblog by online activist Tim Ireland, which claimed that a large number of 'on the street' supporters from her campaign leaflets were, in fact, party activists and/or members of her campaign team. The weblog continues studying her record as a serving MP. In May 2006, it alleged that Milton's public statement against the proposed merger of five local Primary Care Trusts could be undermined by an undeclared conflict of interest (in that her husband held a key position in a local PCT) [11]. " All his other edits relate to Anne Milton, and how the attack blog is really important, honest. Comments such as "And the fact remains that - as much as this MP would like to deny it - this weblog plays a significant role in her professional life. The role it played during the election was reported on by The Times twice over:" are no the comments of someone who is going to add libellous stuff about Tim Ireland. I'm aware of jzg's comment here, that Detoxification, who definitely was opposed to Tim Ireland, was the same user as Miltox, but I believe this is just an error by jzg, as comments like this from detox "Fys stop reverting.Tried to resolve but you not cooperating. BTW 'Fys' is Tim Ireland, the person who runs the website that contains libellous stuff about Anne Milton, the link to which I'm removing.) ", are quite evidently not the same as Miltox above (for a start Miltox has an better command of the English language, let alone the fact that Miltox was arguing *for* Tim Ireland, and created the article about him). Perhaps jzg will confirm his error? Nssdfdsfds 12:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to stop asserting that Fys is Tim Ireland as you are mistaken, and it weakens the rest of your argument. Catchpole 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I know perfectly well who Fys is. I suggest you re-read my post more carefully, taking special note of the " marks. To summarise, I was asserting that Miltox = Tim Ireland, and that Detoxification = somebody opposed to Tim Ireland, and not, as JzG had previously said (and this is what I believe fys is referring to), Miltox. Nssdfdsfds 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I still don't see a reason to remove the Times piece in relation to Milton's successful election campaign in 2005, the article also has Sue Doughty complaining about Milton's literature so it's not as if Ireland was a lone voice. Catchpole 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that article says it's from the roving election reporter "at your beck and call", and asks other readers to email if you want your constituency to be featured. So it doesn't appear proof of notability on its own account, as it's been written as a round-robin, go round the consitutencies type thing, quite possibly instigated by Ireland himself. It's a gossip column, not really news. Nssdfdsfds 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The Sunday Times also sent Rod Liddle to Guildford to produce an article [12], where both Milton and Doughty discuss Ireland's site. It also mentions the allegation of Conservative activists being passed off as local people. This allegation can be mentioned, regardless of your opinion of Ireland. Catchpole 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to think that the blog is as important as you're making it in this article. It's about a heated battle between the two candidates. Ireland is not made the centre of Milton's universe in that article that he seems to think he is. And we don't link to blogs as sources for claims. I also think it's disingenuous to claim that Ireland's claims were "picked up by the Sunday Times", as if the Sunday Times had written an article about the claims. It did not - the article is about a heated battle for a seat in Sunday Times. By all means link the Sunday Times article, but the place for the ref is after "There was a good deal of interest in the result at Guildford in the 2005 general election, prompted not only by the fact that the seat was highly marginal but also by the relatively rare phenomenon of two women candidates contesting for the victory". The claims were not regarded as serious or important by anyone other than Ireland. Linking to attacks on a blog page just isn't on, and the tenor of the article just isn't the "Tim Ireland is really important in the context of Ann Milton" that's being implied. Nssdfdsfds 16:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I should comment that my editing on Wikipedia is much reduced compared to what it was because other editors, not least JzG, have taken to linking my real life identity to my user name on Wikipedia. This was despite my having changed username specifically to try to stop this. The stable door is banging in the wind and the horse is long gone, unfortunately, and it means Wikipedia has me as a much less productive editor compared to what it might have had. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice bit of revisionism. Your activity rate does not seem to be much different before and after I blocked you for violating WP:3RR back in December. Seems the real change took place when you were sanctioned and desysopped by ArbCom for edit warring on another political biography. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The issues on disputed material

There are three separate issues under dispute. Firstly, Anne Milton's votes (dissenting from a majority of the Conservatives) for no exception for private clubs from the smoking ban. Secondly, her signing of an EDM on fake fur for bearskin hats. Thirdly, the Tim Ireland blog.

On the first, I should correct what seems to be a mistaken impression that this was an EDM - it was not, it was a free vote in the House of Commons. I argue for inclusion on the grounds that Anne Milton was making a stance distinct from the majority of the Conservative Party, and that that stance was important because a clear inference (although it need not be mentioned) was that it was driven by her involvement in healthcare. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed a free vote, and I didn't say it was an EDM. WHen I referred to EDMs not being notable, I was referring to the non-notable EDM which I also deleted. I don't think it is notable as it is, as you say, a free vote, non-whipped and voted for by no less than 47 Tory MPs. A 47-125 division by the Tories is rather less of a rebellion than the 50 Labour MPs who opposed the 276 Yes votes. I can't imagine surely that you propose to add this information to all 50 of those MPs' wikipedia entries? Moreover, don't you think that non-whipped non-party political issues such as this one are actually not particularly notable, and if this kind of thing were to be noted everywhere the articles would be full of tedious trivia. Nssdfdsfds 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You've removed it many times on the grounds that EDMs are not notable. There's no rule that information must be added, and the fact that it might not be in other articles is hardly an argument against including it here. I say it is significant, is a non-trivial stance and worth inclusion. Why on earth you should positively believe it should not be in there is quite beyond me. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I removed two things, the EDM, and this vote. When I said EDMs are non-notable, I was referring to the EDM I was removing. Why I don't believe it should be here? Are you going to edit the other 46 Tory MPs and the 50 Labour MPs pages to add it in? And then similarly for numerous other non party-political actions? Nssdfdsfds 12:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the second, Nss' points about EDMs are really quite silly. There may indeed be thousands of EDMs, but no-one is arguing for inclusion of every single one. Would it seriously be argued that if a government MP signed an EDM calling for the Prime Minister to resign, that should not be mentioned? Clearly it should. The case here is that Anne Milton's signing of this particular EDM is worth noting because it was a stance not adopted by many in the Conservative Party, and because she was the first from her Party to sign it. There are some EDMs which are explicitly party political and I know that in the PLP, decisions are taken at PLP meetings on which EDMs Labour MPs are supposed not to sign. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But we're talking about bear-skin hats, not the PM's resignation. Bear-skin hats are a not a matter of Tory party policy. If she was a government MP signing an EDM saying the health service is a disaster, that would be notable. There are no party political points to be scored on this issue. Nssdfdsfds 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is precisely that it is non-party political. We know Anne Milton's general stance (Cameroonian Conservative); we would like to be told something more about her stances on other issues. This EDM certainly hints she is in sympathy to some extent with animal rights supporters, for instance. It's useful and interesting information and as above, I do not see why you should be agitating for its removal. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting POV, and I would accept if you can find any more evidence about her AR sympathies to add to the article. It's not much use on here on its own. Nssdfdsfds 12:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the third, consensus from the debate in December supports inclusion in the text and as a link. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus. Nssdfdsfds 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You clearly have either mathematical or visual difficulties. The mailing list and other contributions show that the overwhelming majority of people who have expressed an opinion want it mentioned. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have to resort to insults again? Once again, there is definitely not a consensus. Nssdfdsfds 12:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Mailing list consensus can be found here - [13]. Catchpole 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, there was no consensus. There were opinions both ways, as is apparent if you read the whole thread, and there's clearly no consensus now either, with disagreements on all sides. In the end, i say that the election trivia is election trivia and no longer relevant. But either way, I really don't think we need to link attack blocks of no-to-marginal notability from biographical articles. Even of Tories. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we are going to get any further as we are, any objections to a Request for Comment? Catchpole 11:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Request for Comment: Anne Milton

This is a dispute about whether the link to Tim Ireland's Anne Milton blog, as discussed above, should be included.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

The article refers to the above blog in the context of the UK 2005 General Election, when the blog received coverage in the national press. Consensus obtained in December 2006 was to state the address of the blog, but not to link directly to it. Now there are a number of editors who wish to remove it altogether, claiming it is an "attack blog" which Wikipedia should not link to. I think readers should be free to make up your own minds, and that Wikipedia is not censored. As no consensus has been found between the editors who have discussed the matter to date and administrators have declined to involve themselves after a 3RR report on the page, some further thoughts are welcome. Catchpole 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • There was brief coverage of the blog as an election issues, for local colour. It is no longer relevant, the election is over, the arguments are stale and forgotten, Milton won. We do not need this bit of electioneering trivia, any more than we need to report the minor constituency scraps of any other election contest. The principal purpose appears to be to promote the attack blog. Whether that is the principal purpose is largely irrelevant, because that's how it looks. I dispute that there was consensus in December, I saw the discussion result as no consensus. Some people said link, others said not. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The blog was mentioned by The Times as part of its election coverage when someone emailed them to ask them to cover the Guildford constituency as part of their 'round the constituencies' coverage. It was there to add local colour to the local report, which was initiated by someone in the constituency, quite possibly Ireland himself. It was never front-page news - it never got beyond 'amusing local colour mentioned in article on the Guildford election', and is completely disproportionate and irrelevant to the MP's current career. The presumption against including attack blogs created by private individuals is therefore not offset by a couple of mentions in the "amusing local colour" vein prior to the 2005 general election. Nssdfdsfds 10:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • no... the blog should not be cited or linked to. Instead, The Times article (and any other reliable press coverage) that discusses the blog should be cited and, if on-line, linked to. Blueboar 16:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can I also suggest that anyone considering this RFC read the two sources that refer to the blog[14] and [15] And consider how much weight even these pre-2005 general election gossipy pieces give this blog. Having read these two Times pieces (neither of which even mention the URL or Ireland's name), please then consider how appropriate it is to devote an entire paragraph to Ireland's blog in this article, and secondly, (this should be an easier, more obvious decision) whether it is appropriate to include the URL of the blog). Nssdfdsfds 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely include the link, if it is accepted that the blog is worth mention: the article is supposed to be useful so readers who's knowledge is piqued by this fascinating blog which provoked such a dismissive reaction from Anne Milton will be wondering what all the fuss is about. Why make them go to google to find it? Why not just say, in effect, this is where it is, we don't endorse it, but this is what she was reacting to. And I think it should be mentioned.

The Golux 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This discussion doesn't seem old but has a fair few comments already. I use blogs to reference opinion. If a quote is taken from it then cite the blog of course. If no quote is taken then at best I would just leave it as an external link at the bottom of the page for people who are interested. Having it linked to the page in any way increases the verifiability of at least one fact (which is that this person thought these thoughts) on that page (not to say the rest aren't verifiable, that is) Douglike 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I would recommend that you read [16]. In particular "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.". So what you're suggesting is not actually allowed. Nssdfdsfds 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Read and acted upon, the blogs and associated content have been deleted but to show fairness and balance I kept the content in 'discussion'. I tried my utmost to explain how wikipedia works in this regard, however it was met with yet more bile and conspiracy theories. I do hope this is the end of this debacle, such a display of poison on a factual website is both distasteful and sad. Twobells 17:08, 6th May 2007

"What is your fascination with my secret closet of mysteries?" Twobells 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary reshuffle, September 2012

AM seems to have been reshuffled out of the cabinet. See e.g.:

--peter_english (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

AM's husband - no longer DPH for East Surrey PCT

The article states that AM's husband, Graham Henderson, is DPH of East Surrey PCT. According to his linked in page he is "Medical Director at Surrey Community Health". He has been described as medical director of Virgin Care - e.g. here - but I'm not certain that this is a credible source. This appears more reliable.

There is curiously little that comes up on a quick google search about this. --peter_english (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Milton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Her current husband, Dr Graham Henderson, whom she married in February 2000 in Surrey, works in the NHS as a doctor (Clinical Fellow) in Emergency medicine at The Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust in Guildford, he also holds a high level position with Virgin Healthcare. 82.34.135.9 (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. st170e 13:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Replace Her current husband, Dr Graham Henderson, whom she married in February 2000 in Surrey, works in the NHS as a doctor (Clinical Fellow) in Emergency medicine at The Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust in Guildford, who previously served as a director of Virgin Healthcare.

with Dr Graham Henderson, whom she married in February 2000 in Surrey, works in the NHS as a doctor (Clinical Fellow) in Emergency medicine at The Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust in Guildford, he also holds a high level position with Virgin Healthcare. https://www.linkedin.com/in/graham-henderson-22461820/ 82.34.135.9 (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LinkedIn's reliability as a source is questionable. You ought to find another source. st170e 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Milton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Milton on the arhcved page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

This article needs protection from political interference, and edits made by the houses of parliament reversed: to protect the principles of Wikipedia. As quoted in the following article [1] RoslinGenetics (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In any case, the article is currently semi-protected since those edits were made. If an increase is necessary we can request one. Thanks for alerting about the media coverage. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Not a noob but pretty inexperienced RoslinGenetics (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The media coverage is definitely topical - and quite widely mentioned in the UK press. Clearly someone in parliament wanted to bury this woman’s strong connections to Virgin Healthcare - and for good reason. There is clearly a COI in her being minister of health. 20040302 (talk) 20040302 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Steerpike "Anne Milton’s Wikipedia edited from Parliament ahead of reshuffle", The Spectator, London, 08 January 2018. Retrieved on 08 January 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne_Milton/Archive_1&oldid=1136522239"