Jump to content

Talk:Jim Devine

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

'Expenses row MP dropped by Labour'

[edit]

Jim Devine has become the fifth Labour MP to be barred from standing at the next election over his expenses claims, BBC News --Mais oui! (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud charges

[edit]

www.jimdevine.org.uk

[edit]

Is no more.

Please could someone remove this from the factbox? --78.101.198.88 (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove. --213.130.122.195 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chill. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a sentence

[edit]

I removed this:

Devine claimed to have heard "nothing" about a possible prosecution despite it being widely reported over a number of months that his case had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that he was "astonished and devastated" by the impending prosecution.<ref name="charges">{{cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248688/Expenses-scandal-Three-Labour-MPs-Tory-peer-charged-false-accounting.html|title=Three Labour MPs and one Tory peer to be charged with false accounting over expenses claims|publisher=The Daily Mail|accessdate=5 February 2010|location=London|first1=Stephen|last1=Wright|first2=Jason|last2=Groves}}</ref>

My rationale is that the words "nothing" and "astonished and devastated" do not appear in the text of the cited source. I also think this is likely synthesis and undue weight designed to make him appear to be lying to the public about the status of his case. I can easily imagine how he might well have been both "astonished and devastated" to hear that the case had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and then for a reporter to have more knowledge than him at a particular moment in time that the prosecution would go forward in fact, and him correctly saying that he had heard nothing about that.

Unless a reliable non-tabloid source which is not an editorial against him documents that he has been inconsistent in statements to the press, we can't make that judgment ourselves. Precision is really important in BLPs.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of the article from Category:Scottish fraudsters / Category:Scottish politicians convicted of fraud

[edit]

User Doc Glasgow is clearly profoundly unhappy at us calling a living person a 'fraudster', despite that person having been convicted of fraud in a court of law. Any standard reference dictionary will tell one that the word fraudster means someone convicted of fraud. To placate the good Doc, I initiated Category:Scottish politicians convicted of fraud, however, this resulted in me being at the receiving end of a particularly nasty Edit summary, totally unbecoming of an Admin. Plus ca change. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right you say it yourself - he is a politician convicted of fraud and not a notable fraudster - he is actually just someone who fiddled his expenses in an environment when it was , perhaps, not encouraged but part of the normal working practice and commonplace he is however unlucky enough to be in a vilification process by a bigoted public led by the chip shop press. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need to defend Mr. Lewis here in order to suggest that "fraudster" isn't the right thing here. Clearly, and as a simple matter of fact, he's been convicted of fraud, so it seems that this category is the right one. I'm not sure we should ever use the term 'fraudster' for anyone, living or dead, because it seems to involve a complex judgment that someone is, as a matter of their nature, or as an essential defining characteristic of their life, a fraudster, as compared to the relatively simple and matter of fact identification of a conviction. Of course there are people who made a career of fraud, and we might call them fraudsters, but I'd be wary of it.
I'm unsure why you removed the British category just now, leaving the Scottish one, but I presume that isn't so much a BLP question as it is a conceptual hierarchy question?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was not a BLP issue. I was of the belief that we don't add people to the category and all the possible sub cats but I might be mistaken, I thought that was over categorization ? I think there is some conflict of addition between adding both British and Scottish, and English and British and so on. If you look here you'll see, cats are supposed to be populated or can be deleted, and there is only one person in this cat and it is an immediate sub cat of the British one. After consideration I put him back, it says he is British in his infobox. It is the sub division of the cat that is perhaps the issue, but never mind.Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this word "fraudster" is getting up people's noses. Someone convicted of murder is a murderer; someone convicted of fraud is a fraudster. There isn't anything more than grammar here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment has been oft repeated as a claim for this, and I can almost not be bothered to repeat as it is so clear that if you are posting your comment you are likely not interested anyway - but a murderer is commonly for his whole lifetime refereed to as such, its common that happens, but its not like that with a minor case of fraud, to call them a fraudster forever is attacking - and many people in this world are poor and angry and want to attack anyone, so join the queue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same logic would say someone who once smoked should be added to category:smokers. The fact language does not operate with the tidy logic that doing x makes someone an x-er. Murderer means someone who has once committed murder, even if it were 80 years ago, - that's the linguistic nuance it carries. One act defines the murderer. Someone who told a lie 50 years ago cannot be called a "liar". That act doesn't define them. Each word has its own nuance.--Scott Mac 19:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither example (smoker/liar) is remotely convincing, in part because they are not criminal acts. The main difficulty you face, as I see it, is that you're referring to the way you use the words, or the way you think others use the words. Since I'm basing my point in grammar, the same can't be said of me; at most, I'm expressing my view on the basis for how this issue should be determined, but at least I'm referring to something arguably objective. A suggestion for a possible compromise: Devine now carries a criminal record -- perhaps it is reasonable to consider him a fraudster for as long as the offence is not "spent". Again, something objective, not purely an editor's POV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are working on the logical fallacy of grammatical consistency that x is to x-er as y is to y-er. However, there should not be a problem here. Where a term's interpretation has become a matter of contention, we go for the incontestably accurate term "convicted of fraud". I fail to see why anyone could object to that, You may find the added accuracy unnecessary (we can agree to differ) but the alternative is surely unobjectionable.--Scott Mac 20:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does grammatical consistency constitute a logical fallacy?? Anyway: your POV is that fraudster is "inaccurate". I disagree. The matter can be settled via consensus in the usual way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because language is not consistent - it isn't maths! Anyway, can you explain what's wrong with using the undoubtedly acurate "convicted of" formula? I really don't understand what the problem is?--Scott Mac 21:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its the attack position. Users without any responsibility towards the projects goals and ambitions, imo the main consideration is the desire to aggressively label a living person with the most extreme label available, a lesser one but yet actually more factual is objected to. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jim Devine. 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) 13:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Devine&oldid=1231992140"