Jump to content

Talk:Charles Shoebridge

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

[Untitled section]

[edit]

I'm the reluctant subject of this biography page, and have created this user account purely for the purpose of removing inappropriate material that's started to appear on this page. I'm unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia, but have spent some time familiarising myself with its policies for biographies of living persons, particularly those relating to privacy, a neutral point of view, notability and newsworthiness, and the bringing of offsite disputes onto Wikipedia.

I've made amendments to this page in adherence to Wikipedia's BLP policies, including in an attempt to make the page much more neutral in content and tone than it's recently become. More specifically, I've amended content for the following reasons:

  1. In a few minor cases, for reasons of grammatical improvement.
  2. Inserting unproven allegations in relation to a BLP is a breach of Wikipedia's privacy policy, which states that persons shouldn't be re victimised by having false allegations repeated - particularly when as in this case the allegations referred to are some seventeen years old, and were not only unproven but actually disproved. As such, all references to unproven allegations have been removed.
  3. The previous text also did't conform to Wikipedia's policies relating to a neutral point of view. For example, in respect of the "bullying" allegations, no mention was made by the user of their very minor nature (this information is available within the references the user cited), nor that the the allegations arose as a result of the encouragement of a senior police officer. Crucially (and perhaps also tellingly) the user also omitted to mention the essential fact that these "bullying" allegations were found (again as is contained in the user's own cited reference) to be disproved.
  4. Reference to alleged highly sensitive medical matters is a self evident and serious breach of Wikipedia's privacy policy, and has hence been removed. Reference to a subject's personal financial affairs and settlements is also a breach of privacy, particularly when this can only be mentioned in the context of the false allegations the subject suffered, and when such matters are in any case of no weight in respect of the reason why the subject is considered notable.
  5. Re Sky News, it is with some reluctance accepted that, because it relates to the media work for which the subject is deemed notable, it's arguable that this matter is of sufficient weight and newsworthiness to merit inclusion within the BLP. Some amendments however have been made to reflect accuracy (details are available within the references the user himself has cited). However, there is no justification for inclusion of the minutiae of each side's case; all that's necessary to say is what the claim was about, that it was denied by Sky News, but that the judgment found the subject's claims proved. Further, from the perspective of a neutral point of view, if the details of one side's case are to be mentioned, then so too should those of the other side - yet no effort was made to do so. Again, no mention was made that no evidence was produced to support Sky's allegations, nor that the judgment rejected such purported reasons as the reason for the termination of the subject's employment. No mention is made that Sky News accepted that it had been approached by Police, but that they in subsequent legal hearings claimed it was a coincidence that this occurred at exactly that time they took the subject off air. The allegations the user referred to were only made years later when Sky was required to publicly justify the removal decision. All of this would be necessary to include in order to provide neutral balance to the mentioning of these unfounded allegations. Further, whereas newspapers have privilege to make contemporaneous reference to unfounded allegations, repeating them (especially without any background or balancing context) nine years later is potentially libellous. Also, these references to unfounded allegations are in any case a further breach Wikipedia's privacy policy, and hence for all the above reasons have been removed. Similarly, there is no reason for inclusion of the private financial details of the damages - from the perspective of the subject's notability, all that is necessary is a reference to the fact that he won his case and received damages as a result. Wikipedia's privacy policies suggest that, unless a matter is of special weight and relevance, any decision as to the inclusion of potentially private matter should err on the side of the subject's privacy.
  6. In respect of the Sky News case, the Guardian citation contains no more information of weight than the BBC source already cited, but does refer to the false allegations mentioned above. The Guardian reference is damaging and redundant, and hence has been removed.
  7. Re the now removed Russia Today material, the subject of this BLP has made in excess of 2500 separate television, radio and print media contributions. Wikipedia is not intended to be a list of such matters, and none has previously been listed. The Russia Today contribution inserted is just one of these contributions. It is entirely unremarkable, and of no special weight or newsworthiness to justify its seemingly random inclusion. Further, the lack of neutral tone (for example, by the user potentially libellously suggesting the subject allowed himself to be used by the Russian government; the user's use of inverted commas around the word "expert"; the highly controversial use of the phrase "separatist terrorists" to describe in this case the civilian population of Slavyansk; and the inclusion of a citation that makes no reference at all to the subject of the BLP but expresses a viewpoint presumably shared by the user) suggests the true purpose of this material isn't to add anything of weight to the subject's biography, but is an attempt to advance the user's own political point of view. This isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, and nor should off site disputes be brought into Wikipedia pages. If the user disagrees with some commentary the subject has given (in this case that video evidence suggests white phosphorus was likely used, but that this requires independent investigation - see the now removed citation), there are many places more suitable to discuss such matters than on the subject's Wikipedia article. For all of the above reasons, this material has also therefore been removed.

UK1000 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no request for any admin action in the post above. What admin action would you like? GB fan 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning UK1000. My apologies that a Wikipedia article about a living person has been in such a sorry state for such a long time. I have given it a long-overdue haircut, although I do not know how long other editors may allow the re-styling to remain.
There still seem to be lots of "citation needed" tags on the article, which are unsightly. Do you know of any reliable sources that might be used to confirm the truth of any of those facts?
In closing, if you should ever address any media organisation about the use of white phosphorus as a weapon, please be sure to mention its widespread and successful use by the British Army to repel an aggressor in the Falklands War. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Demiurge1000
Many thanks for your attention to this matter, and for having taken the time to familiarise yourself with the relevant subject material.
Unfortunately another user has now substantially changed your edit, in some cases reintroducing material that doesn’t comply with Wikipedia’s BLP policies (particularly in respect of privacy - please see the detailed first post above), and introducing material which isn't sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopaedia but which appears to have been included solely on the ground that it's been published elsewhere. At the same time, BLP compliant and highly relevant material has been removed on the ground that no citations had been added, notwithstanding that such references are readily discoverable. Lastly, the user appears to have edited the reference to being a barrister without understanding the meaning of the reference source he’s cited. In this source it isn’t stated that the subject was “studying law” as the user has written, but that those studies had been completed and a BVC obtained.
Given the above, and that I’m unable to edit the new version myself for fear of breaching COI policies, I’d respectfully ask that your original edit be restored as soon as possible so that the page is once again factual, neutral, relevant and compliant with BLP policies.
I'd also propose for consideration the following slight amendment – that the inverted commas around “victimising” be removed, as these may inadvertently give the impression to some that despite the tribunal findings such victimisation was somehow contrived or didn't actually happen. In court documents as well as the BBC news source cited for example, inverted commas are not used in this way. Alternatively, the line “the last being for interfering with his media work” might be sufficient here.
In respect of tags, these have now been removed by the aforementioned user. There doesn’t appear to be any discussion ongoing now about notability. In respect of NPOV issues, these were only raised (including by myself) prior to your edit, and haven’t been raised by anyone since - other than by the aforementioned user, who seems to have merely been responding to the then existing tag, which actually referred to the raising of NPOV issues prior to your edit.
In respect of citations, as you’ve suggested I’ve researched and can now provide the following:
  • Re the LSE etc, no web citation appears available for this.
Thanks again for your consideration of the above. In respect of white phosphorus, I certainly take your point re the Falklands (before my time – but only just!). In commenting on this subject for RT as elsewhere I’ve pointed out that WP has been used in almost every modern war, including of course by the US/UK in Iraq, and by Israel in Gaza. I've also stated, including on RT, that contrary to popular misunderstanding its use, for example if by Ukraine, and even if as a weapon, isn’t necessarily unlawful. I guess that no matter what one says however, there will always be people unhappy at what’s been said, depending on their political point of view.
Thank you once again for having taken the trouble to deal with the issues mentioned, and best wishes. UK1000 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no BLP violations in the current version of the article. As noted in a recent edit summary on the article, there are many sources that quote things the subject of the article has said, there are few articles from reliable sources with actual verifiable biographical information. Most of the content you are requesting to add is better suited to a resume than to an encyclopedic biography. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WtWilson3, thanks for your latest contribution. Please see my original post above which in detail indicates how the material you wish to introduce breaches BLP guidelines. Obviously a biography within an encyclopaedia will bear some resemblance to a resume, since it contains the same factual content. However a resume boasts about achievements and seeks to paint the subject in a positive light, whereas the edit of Demiurge1000 for example does not in any way do this. In your experience as an editor, you'll have seen many biogs on Wikipedia that consist simply of the facts that make that person notable, and that is what Demiurge1000, paying due regard to BLP policies, has taken the trouble to produce. In your previous comment below, you stated that my previous edit had sanitised the biog, whereas it had actually only been sanitised of material that clearly should not have been present in the first place. Further, I went to great lengths to explain with reference to Wiki's BLP policies above why this was so. For example, Wikipedia's policies make clear that the subject of a BLP should not be revictimised by the repetition of unproven (even more so disproved) allegations - yet for some reason, you seem to think it's important to do so.

I note that previously on this BLP you have posted material containing, among other items, details of unfounded and indeed disproved allegations, as well as highly personal sensitive medical and financial details - all of which are clear breaches of Wikipedia's BLP policies, particularly in relation to privacy and notability. You also posted material which was defamatory, in that you posted the detail of disproved allegations of many years ago, yet without mentioning for example that those allegations had been disproved - even though this information was contained in the source you cited. Further, you reposted material which you claimed was well sourced, yet had you checked those sources it would have been evident they did not contain the information you claimed they supported. Despite having posted such material in flagrant breach of Wikipedia editorial policy (which itself suggests issues of NPOV) you then threatened me with being blocked for having, as Wikipedia policy clearly states should happen, immediately removed this material.

It's intriguing that an experienced Wikipedia editor would have done all of this. It's also noteworthy that you immediately intervene when changes are made to to correct these breaches, such that you appear to have some sort of personal involvement here. It's also notable that there has been no comment since your interventions started from the anonymous users (or perhaps, one anonymous user using multiple identities) who posted the inappropriate material in the first place. You were quick to suggest that my having edited this page constituted a possible COI, notwithstanding that I very openly declared I was the unfortunate subject of this BLP, that my edits were purely factual, and that I went to great lengths to explain why they'd been made. Are you able to confirm that you are unrelated in any way to those who have previously edited this BLP and that, perhaps through your own personal political opinions, you don't yourself have a COI here? UK1000 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who recently worked the article over. Responding to points by UK1000

  • None of my edits violate WP:BLP, as far as I can see. If UK1000 can point to a specific text in the article, and a specific text within WP:BLP that the article text is problematic in light of, I would be very happy to discuss.
  • I found no source that actually describes military, intelligence, or counter-intelligence service, nor "qualified barrister." the sources provided by UK1000 provide descriptive blurbs, likely provided by Shoebridge to whomever was interviewing him; to support such a description here, we would need reliable sources that actually discuss service in the military, intelligence, or counter-intelligence (to show you what I mean, two sources cited in our article explicitly discuss Shoebridge's service on the Metropolitan Police, which is why I left that in.) The source about serving on the College of Law team - what that source says, is that Shoebridge was a law student. It doesn't say that Shoebridge graduated from law school, nor that Shoebridge successfully undertook the subsequent steps it takes to become a "qualified barrister." says that Shoebridge had just completed a Bar Professional Training Course - I fixed that. My apologies for missing that Shoebridge had completed it. There is no mention of which of the Inns of Court Shoebridge was called to, nor that he completed his pupillage - we can only state was reliable sources support, especially in a BLP article. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC) (corrected myself, and corrected the article Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Jytdog for this. It's notable that you seem willing to accept sources for material prejudicial to the subject of this BLP, yet decline to use those same sources for material which, rightly for an encyclopaedia, establishes his credentials. For example, in the BBC source you cite for the tribunal hearings, it is clearly stated that the subject worked in counter terrorism operations, which was an integral part of the case being reported. It's strange also that when a reputable source reports something that could be perceived as negative, you're happy to use it, yet when those same sources state that the subject was involved in counter terrorism operations with both police and army, you state that this is probably just something the subject told them. Note that the sources cited state these matters as fact, not as something that was just told to them as you without evidence suggest. Further, you seem to assume that reputable media organisations don't make checks on those they use as contributors - why would the BBC, Guardian, RT etc claim without reservation that the subject was something that he wasn't? Further, how could the subject have got away for so many years with the apparent fraud you seem to be alluding to - you don't think that in thirteen years the police or army would have mentioned to anyone in the media that the subject's claimed credentials are false? In other words, there's nothing controversial about the claim of these credentials, which you'll be aware are also (as Wikipedia citation policy allows) referenced within the subject's own published website. Lastly, it's perplexing as to what biographical sources are required, if the unequivocal and unambiguous evidence provided by major international media organisations isn't sufficient - do you think the police or army publish the official records of who served with them in anti-terror operations?

In respect of the barrister qualification, this accrues irrespective of whether a pupillage was undertaken.

In summary, it seems increasingly clear that the subject of this BLP is being subjected to evidential requirements well beyond those specified in Wikipedia policies, and well beyond the stringency of source material required of comparable subjects. Further, there seems among some here an enthusiasm to post in respect of this subject inappropriate and disparaging material and innuendo that doesn't appear to be within the purposes of Wikipedia. Lastly, it seems clear that a subject unfortunate enough to find himself in this situation is required to spend a colossal amount of time in attempting to put right what Wikipedia policies rightly make clear shouldn't in any case be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UK1000 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB Please note that as my password for UK1000 for some reason is now not being accepted by Wikipedia at log in, I’m for now using the account UKL1000 UKL1000 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are new here, and you probably don't know that we discuss content, not contributors. (please see the talk page guidelines). You will find that discussions are more productive if you make simple statements and ask simple, authentic questions, like: "The BBC source cited in the article says that Shoebridge was a "counter-terrorism detective" in the sub-headline. Would you please explain why in your view that doesn't constitute a reliable source per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?" As is stands, your post is tl/dr and you insinuate things about my motivations that are out of bounds. I am not interested in that conversation. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
commenting on the reversion I just made, with edit note "it is out of bounds to edit comments that others have responded to. see WP:REDACT " -- to be more complete, it is OK to edit your own comments after others have responded to them, but only if you show the edits, as described in WP:REDACT. It is not OK to just delete and add things - it makes other's comments look stupid or off target to those who examine the record later. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Jytdog for this. You're right that I'm new here, and indeed I'm here needlessly, and very reluctantly. My comments above point out inconsistencies in your approach to the editing of this article, and to an apparent inaccurate understanding of facts that you've edited on the basis of, such as what it means to be a "qualified barrister". I've also pointed out that references you stated didn't exist in fact clearly do exist, and within the very reference you yourself have elsewhere cited. Despite this you deleted what is by any measure a crucial fact of the subject of this article's credentials on the basis of it purportedly having no reference - and this despite an administrator's warning that further inappropriate edits could attract administrator sanction.

You'll see that, by insinuation or otherwise, I made no reference as to what motivation you might have had for having edited this article in the way you have - simply pointing out apparent errors of editing doesn't fall within this category. It's actually a little surprising to find that an experienced Wikipedia editor who's frequently been very forthright in his own comments should now seek to cite tl/dr issues rather than address the substantive editing issues raised.

Whilst I haven't implied anything about your own motivation, it's true that I questioned whether WtWilson3 should properly declare a COI, and explained my reasons for having asked this - although on reflection bias or NPOV may have been a better consideration. I note that although these comments potentially alluding to motivation were directed at WtWilson3, it's yourself who's apparently taken offence at them - and for any such offence caused I apologise, notwithstanding the validity of the comments that have caused it. I also note that you earlier used the term "we" when referring to the edits you'd carried out. Can I ask therefore whether WtWilson3 and yourself are in fact the same person, or somehow related in this matter? If so, presumably if only as a matter of morality, transparency, courtesy and accountability this is an interest which, as I earlier mentioned to WtWilson3, should be declared.

Whilst it's admittedly a difficult question to ask without you perhaps suggesting it insinuates a potential NPOV issue at play here, it's nonetheless a legitimate request that you please explain why you haven't now restored to the article the vitally important fact you deleted in respect of this BLP subject's credibility when, from your comments above, you clearly now know the reference for it exists. Thanks. UKL1000 (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS Re your post in respect of editing, you'll have seen that at the time I was composing and editing my earlier comments I hadn't seen that you'd replied. Nothing was in fact changed that did have the effect you described - but yes, in general I take your point on this, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. UKL1000 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you still have asked no questions about my edits and you continue to focus on me, and not the content. i remain uninterested. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise that you've taken the step of editing my own comments on this talk page. First, my comments were added only to better aid understanding of the matters being discussed. Second, the edited comments were made at a time when I didn't know you’d already replied, as I had the edit page open, not the talk page. Third, some of my comments that you've removed were not addressed to you but to WtWilson3, who has not yet replied. Fourth and most important, the changes to my comments had no impact whatsoever on the reply you've made. There is therefore no justification for your reversion of these comments, or any editing by yourself of my talk page comments, which have now been restored. It does seem that in this case, as no harm or disadvantage whatsoever has been caused to your reply or your arguments (such as they are, given your refusal now to discuss the matters I've raised), you're needlessly taking an enormous amount of time and making an awful lot of work for someone who is trying to act in good faith, but who you're fully aware doesn't know procedures as well as yourself. Nonetheless, as stated I understand and accept the general point you make in relation to this procedure for the future. Thanks UKL1000 (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly for now, in response to your last comment please reread my own comments above. You'll see they raise numerous points about not you, but about your edits - to which I note you now refuse to respond. Further, at the end of my post to which you made your last reply, you were explicitly asked a direct question about your edits - and which was even labelled as a question. For your convenience I repeat it here:

please explain why you haven't now restored to the article the vitally important fact you deleted in respect of this BLP subject's credibility when, from your comments above, you clearly now know the reference for it exists. Thanks. UKL1000 (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ignoring everything but the last paragraph. we actually recently had a discussion on the Talk page of WP:RS about sourcing content in a WP article, from something found only in a headline or summarizing blurb, but not actually discussed in the source. I was very surprised that anyone would even try to do that as I had never encountered it before. Now I have. In any case, as I wrote above, there is no reliable source that actually discusses any Shoebridge role in counter terrorism, intelligence operations, or the military. i would not source anything in a Wikipedia article from a headline or summarizing blurb, especially not in a BLP article where it is very important that we are accurate. These describing snippets are all over the place about Shoebridge:
In making careful selections about sourcing and content for a contested Wikipedia BLP article, in this instance, as I did with all other the choices I made, I wrote Wikipedia content as carefully and conservatively close to what reliable sources actually describe and avoided all unsubstantiated claims about Shoebridge. Under the same reasoning, I also did not discuss the allegations of sexual harassment and bullying. I did discuss the suspension and suit because that was clearly a turning point in Shoebridge's career from actual police work to punditry, as Shoebridge himself says in the source. With respect to his career prior to punditry, the only thing I am really confident of, based on the sources, is that he worked for the Metropolitan Police. Other editors may want to lower the bar for reliable sourcing but in that case, all kinds of things, positive and negative, would reasonably come in. That is not how I edit.
Anyway, I am done with you and will respond no further. You keep violating Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and norms and are recalcitrant, even when your attention is called to them. In any case, as you have been told before, you can bring up remaining issues on the BLP noticeboard. Jytdog (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog for your comments, even if from the above it's a pity you seem unable to respond to criticisms of your edits without assuming those criticisms were made in bad faith, and then you responding with personal criticism that has nothing to do with the edits in question. Further, on now two occasions your edits have been reverted by experienced Wikipedia editors, yet despite the presence of OTRS and administrator warnings, you persist in making changes to those reverts.

To move onto more substantive matters, for whatever reason you've randomly cited above references from the many hundreds available, but for no easily discernible purpose. For example, it's obvious that within a twenty year army and police career it's perfectly possible to carry out a number of different roles, and also to have those roles described by different sources in different ways. Terms such as former army officer, infantry officer, intelligence officer, riot (public order) trained officer, police officer, detective, community officer etc all provide accurate credentials for speaking on subjects related to these fields - not least when our television screens are full of self declared "experts" with few such credentials. The fact you think it strange that someone could over twenty years have a number of different roles suggests your knowledge of police and military matters is limited, just as it was (see above) in respect of legal qualifications. Given this, you might want to reconsider whether it's appropriate that you make comments and edits that might be better if based on knowledge that you don't appear to have.

You seem to imply a further point, that if a person is described for example as an "army officer" ten years after he left service, this is somehow less credible or reliable than if he's described as such five years afterwards. Such a suggestion obviously has no logical basis - if a person was in fact an army officer, it's irrelevant at which point this is said. Further, there may be perfectly good and obvious reasons why it may not be ideal to have counter-insurgency military service advertised. The point here is as seemingly always, that you appear to be pushing the boundaries of reasonableness and credibility in attempting to seek out any reason why perfectly good sources establishing the subject of this BLP's credentials shouldn't be used. In this respect, I'd again refer you to my more full comments above. Thanks. UK1000 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with Jytdog, I too am done engaging with you. As long as you continue to follow the rules and refrain from making edits for which there is no consensus, I will not be responding here. Your diatribe above not withstanding, I have done none of the things you accuse me of. If you review the history of this article, you will see that my entire contribution was replacing some content that you removed in an apparent violation of the COI rules. And most of that content has since been removed by other editors. So I will not rise to the bait you present by accusing me of heinous editing. From here on I will simply be lurking to ensure that all remains well with the article. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 15:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WtWilson3 for your contribution even if, like Jytdog, you react to criticism of your edit by lashing out against the person making such criticisms, and by failing to answer reasonable questions put to you. In respect of the material removed by other editors, this was in breach of a number of BLP policies, was potentially defamatory, and poorly sourced - indeed, had you bothered to check the sources before making your intervention here you'd have seen they didn't even state what was claimed from them. You're an experienced editor here; you surely know that when you repost material you take responsibility for its posting. In future, you might want to consult BLP policies, and perhaps even the sources cited, before doing so. Thanks. UK1000 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking the bait. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 17:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing

[edit]

In your comment above you claim to have made changes in accordance with WP:BLP policies. However your edits do not comply with the policy on writing about yourself. According to that you should only edit "if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." And the edits you made do not fit in that category. You might want to consider opening a discussion at the Wikipedia Biographies of living persons noticeboard where Wikipedia BLP experts can help refine the article for you. You can also continue the discussion of your proposed changes on this page, but the noticeboard is where the experts are.

For now I have reverted the changes you made. Your version was sanitized to the point of sounding like a resume, and that's also a problem for an article like this. Please remember that reverting edits in this situation, especially considering the conflict of interest, could easily be considered edit warring, and could ultimately result in a blocking of editing privileges. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 15:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

quick note on sources

[edit]

I stopped by my library and checked various encyclopedias and biographical resources (whos who and the like) and found nothing on Shoebridge. The only reliable sources I think exist are the three appearing in this version of the article, and only two of which are solid - the third is a puff piece from the law school where Shoebridge went, but is good enough, in my view:

I also searched the web a good 10 pages into a google search. Those three are really it, as far as I could find for reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weird situation; because of Shoebridge's work as a pundit there are tons of articles and news pieces where he gives opinions, but there are few reliable biographical sources about him. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
additional note - Shoebridge's appears to have 2 websites, one for his consulting business, http://shoebridgeconsulting.com/ and another that ~appears~ to be from him, related to his litigation: http://www.shoebridge-v-metpolice.info/ Neither of those are reliable sources in my eyes - they both fail WP:INDY Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As repeatedly stated above, and with examples given, there are numerous references available from sources such as the Guardian, BBC and many other reputable news organisations where it is stated, as a matter of fact, that the subject of this BLP was as the sources describe. The sources do not say for example "Charles Shoebridge says he was an army officer", instead they say "Charles Shoebridge is a former army officer". This is perfectly adequate for Wikipedia's source policy, as even indeed to a degree would be self published material. Your objections to these sources are unrealistic and unreasonable, and if you applied similar reasoning to other BLP articles, vast amounts of perfectly true and verified information would need to be removed. Given that for thirteen years Shoebridge has appeared regularly on international media without anyone exposing him as a fraud, you can have no reasonable grounds to suspect that the claims of himself and countless media companies that his credentials to speak upon the subjects he speaks of are false. Those credentials furthermore are an obviously vital part of any encyclopaedia article dealing with this subject.

To reiterate what's been said above, it isn't for you or anyone else to simply assert that citations aren't valid just because of an assumption made by yourself, without any supporting evidence, that "it's probably just what Shoebridge told them", or that none of these highly reputable media organisations would have carried out checks on Shoebridge's credentials. Further, the BBC source you yourself used as a citation explicitly stated that Shoebridge was a counter terrorism detective - not because he claimed this, but because it was an essential part of the legal case the BBC source was reporting - the fact that he was a counter terrorism detective was a part of the actual report. As stated above, the fact that you would use this source as a reason to mention something potentially perceived as negative about this subject, yet attempt to disallow use of exactly the same source to establish his positive credentials that relate directly to his alleged notability, raises questions about the consistency of your edits here. In respect of NPOV matters, and of your having declined to answer questions in relation to a potential COI, plus your having twice acted in apparent contravention of editing warnings after your edits were reverted by other experienced editors, it may be best if you now move on and leave this BLP and its subject alone. Thanks. UK1000 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the very many citation sources available, perhaps the most appropriate for use, as requested in previous edits, are here:

and (if additionally necessary re “officer”) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charles-shoebridge/post_3720_b_1722772.html

UK1000 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

There seems to be a faction (if I may describe it thus) on this talkpage which objects to the inclusion of any material about Shoebridge beyond the rather basic and easily provable facts that he was some guy who was on TV for a while, and then was not on TV for a while due to the shenanigins of others, and now is on TV again. An article reduced to such very basic facts would have difficulty establishing the notability required in order to remain on Wikipedia.

There is also an editor on this talkpage who, assuming good faith, is Shoebridge himself. This editor has, if I understand matters correctly, indicated that he would prefer there not to be an article about himself on Wikipedia.

It is my understanding of common practice (and thus consensus, which may trump policy if policy is silent) that we take the subject's wishes on deletion into account - perhaps only to a limited degree - in cases where notability is unclear.

The methodology for doing so is for the subject to contact WP:Volunteer response team and to establish that they are indeed the subject (by whatever means the volunteer response team do that), and to indicate their preference in the matter of article or no article. This would then be recorded officially by something called an "OTRS ticket" which could be added to this talkpage and/or referenced in any Articles for Deletion discussion. (The details and contents of the OTRS ticket itself, and the correspondence, would not be publicly viewable.)

Charles (addressing you here since I can be reasonably sure you will look here, not sure about your various accounts), if this is all the case then please go to Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects and use the first of the two email addresses presented there (the info-en-q one) and ask them to make the necessary arrangements to confirm this. To begin with, it is simplest merely to ask them to verify that you are Charles Shoebridge and that you prefer there not to be an article about yourself on Wikipedia (you could mention this talkpage); explaining all of the whys and wherefores is not necessary at this stage.

If you are not sure whether you'd like Wikipedia to have an article about you or not, or you think it could be "fixed" (which I think it can, but it will likely take some time), or if you don't want to bother with emails and verification processes when they have no guarantee of achieving the desired result anyway, then that's fine too and you could just let us know here.

Whichever is the case, unfortunately I probably won't have much if any time to address the problems here for at least a week or so, for which I apologise. I do see however that a very experienced editor has today (I think) begun making some needed improvements to the article itself, so things may get better rapidly in my absence anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000 based on the lack of sources with good biographical information, I wouldn't oppose deletion. Tough situation. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Demiurge1000; your interventions along with those of Mdann52 have been very helpful, and very much appreciated. To answer the point you raise, my view since its creation has been that I don't mind if there's a Wikipedia article about me or not - on the one hand it's likely to be of some marginal use to those who may see or hear me on TV or radio, but on the other, as the last month has shown, it seems that unless one hires expensive specialist lawyers or PR people to continuously monitor the page it can all too easily be used (no direct reference incidentally is made here to Jytdog) by those seeking to act in a damaging and distressing way, the putting right of which takes an enormous amount of time. My own lay opinion is that simply being a person who occasionally provides commentary on television or radio doesn't make that person sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article and, on balance, I'd rather the article didn't exist.

Having said this, if as you suggest it's possible the problems of the last few months can be fixed on a permanent or at least semi permanent basis, this may also provide a solution. I suspect the process of seeking deletion may bring further problems, such as further unwanted attention requiring again a great deal of time, and may as you indicate not produce the desired result anyway. If yourself and other experienced editors are willing to continue to provide assistance as needed, it may therefore be better that the article remains.

I hope this is helpful even if, due to the circumstances I've mentioned, I haven't been able to give a clear yes or no answer - other than that I certainly wouldn't have objections to the article's deletion. Thanks again for your help, and very best wishes UK1000 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edits by Mdann52 today

[edit]

Mdann52 in the face of your adding back claims about "counter-terrorism with the British Army and Scotland Yard," and in the face of the constant complaints of UK1000, I will compromise and agree to let that stand, even though the sourcing is weak. However there is still no source for "A graduate of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst" nor is there any source for "he served for almost two decades" so I took those out, per WP:BLP. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JytdogThanks for your comment, even if your use of remarks such as "claims" and "constant complaints" is again unnecessary and confrontational. To answer the point you've repeatedly made about sourcing, I'd reiterate that if well over a hundred major international media organisations have accepted and published a subject's military and policing credentials, then there's no reason for Wikipedia not to similarly do so - indeed, doing so is at the very core of Wikipedia's policies. Please again see above for our more detailed discussions in respect of this.

Regarding your removal of "a graduate of the RMAS" it seems that, as in our discussion above in respect of military and policing service generally, as also in respect of legal qualifications, you appear again to be commenting and editing in areas beyond your knowledge or competence. For example, basic research would show that all British Army officers of the last many decades are, necessarily, also graduates of the RMAS.

Further, the description of the edits you've made is misleading, because it suggests that all you've done is to remove factual statements for which no citations are available. As detailed below however, it's evident you've also made other undeclared subtle but important (if not important, why make them?) changes to the wording of the previous version which for whatever reason, as indeed it seems with all your edits thus far, act to paint the subject of this article in a less favourable light.

Nevertheless, my only interest as the subject of this BLP is that it should be accurate, fair and unbiased. Therefore I'm happy to respect and reciprocate any suggestion of compromise by accepting the generality of your wording and your removal of mention of the RMAS. As a further compromise, I'd also accept your removal of "two decades", notwithstanding that a self published source is available as a citation for this, and that Wikipedia policies state self published material is acceptable as a citation in the provision of such additional detail within a BLP WP:BLPSELFPUB

Having said this, the line "Charles Shoebridge worked in counter-terrorism with the British Army and the Metropolitan Police until he retired in 2000" that you've now inserted in place of what was stated in the previous edits of Demiurge1000 and Mdann52 is ambiguous, because to some it may misleadingly suggest the subject worked only in counter terrorism, and did so for the entirety of his service until 2000. Similarly, your removal of the word "officer" may also suggest he served as a civilian within these organisations. Also, although you haven't anywhere mentioned having done so, you've replaced "served" with "worked", despite that by customary usage the term "served" applies to police and military service. In the absence of any good reason or explanation for these edits, and without any prior consensus for them (or indeed any other of your edits), these edits should properly be reversed.

To conclude, in the interests of accuracy and fairness, but also accepting in a spirit of compromise your two points in respect of "two decades" and the RMAS, I'd therefore suggest that the second line you inserted be changed to the following: "Charles Shoebridge until his retirement in 2000 served as an officer in the British Army and Metropolitan Police, specialising in counter terrorism roles." This line, which incorporates the sourcing related changes you wished for, reflects a statement of fact that is concise, clear, fair, objective and accurate. Thanks. UK1000 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of completeness, concluding remarks in respect of the above discussion can be seen in the section titled "Your Recent Charles Shoebridge Edit" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=625003159 UK1000 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Shoebridge&oldid=1212454166"