Talk:Olly Robbins

Dearlove material

Earlier today Reaper7 added material based on this Times article, which summarises and contextualises this letter. We've gone back and forth a bit since, and I'm going to spell out my thoughts here.

I think the best way this material can be included is in broader context — there's definitely something to say about Tory MPs attacking Robbins, Sedwill's response, and the counter-response, and Robbins's article is an appropriate place to include that material. (I'll write that up before too long, I just want to make sure we agree on the Dearlove material before making more dramatic alterations and additions). Controversy sections are usually best avoided — WP:CRIT is good on this. The last clause you added about the UK having "no control" isn't something in the source, and I'd take the example of the Times article in using quotes rather than summary style, because newspaper Letters pages aren't reliable sources of fact (only for the senders' views) and shouldn't be repeated uncritically. Ralbegen (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe instead of immediately removing the controversies section I added, you perhaps should have started a talk page topic (you have done now to remove the 'no control' part of this interesting eventuality) to see what others think - because wiki is after all a collaborative project.. You see the thing is about controversies section is that although you may not want one on Ollie Robbins' article - others might such as myself may want one - if it is good enough for 1000s of other excellent articles on here and Ollie has enough to fill such a section adequately. A blue print can be seen here. If others are as certain and forthwith as you are on removing material I have added, i will happily concede. However until that point I ask you to show restraint to sourced and headline material added on this gentleman. As for the 'no control' that is simply describing what Sir Richard Dearlove means by stating the measures will be under EU control as opposed to both EU and UK control - when we leave the EU.. not really complicated unless one is trying to go around the houses to devalue the strength of his comments. So to sum up. Your removal of the contraversies section I do not agree with. I do not agree with you removing MI6 former head Sir Richard Dearlove from the section which I quickly put back and thankfully you left from the culling - because accuracy is important. I disagree with you removing 'no control.' As it is the section does not clearly explain why Sir Richard stated what he did. The reason he did is the loss of control which is key to explaining to readers his issue with what Ollie has done in his view and it is important the reader can see this whether an editor personally agrees with his premise or not. I will add back the no contol part and if you can dig up and editor that agrees with you - you can remove it. I will also seek to reinstate the controversies section depending on what others think. Reaper7 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussions usually take place under the status quo ante, and I've given further detail about why a section labelled "Controversy" is inappropriate in my response above. You've also linked to guidance that supports my position: Avoid mixed bag section titles like "Controversies" without it being clear in the section title (or in the titles of the subsections of such section) what these controversies are about. Robbins has been criticised plenty, but material about that can be integrated coherently into the article, as in the paragraphs starting "In 2010", "In January 2014" and "In July 2016".

I hope you understand that I'm wary about the details of text in this article because WP:BLP violations are very serious. I think the current wording should be changed because it repeats the Times article's misreporting of the Veterans for Britain letter: the letter accuses Alastair Brockbank of "covertly working", while Robbins fails "to control him". I'm also very cautious of the phrase "no control over" because it's not included in the letter or the article — the phrase "under EU control" in quotation marks would be preferable.

There's been a lot of coverage of Robbins, which this article and letter are only a part of, hence my proposal above to include it in a larger passage that gives due weight to it amongst recent RS material about him. I hope that helps clarify my thinking, and I hope further that we'll be able to reach a consensus! Ralbegen (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the section out. I think it gives due weight to the various reliable source coverage about Robbins and the criticism of him, including the VfB letter signed by Dearlove. Ralbegen (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you have made an absolute mess of the section (not even a mention of the specific reasons for the letter from the former head of MI6 such as lack of future control) the whole section is stumbling all over itself trying to apologise for Ollie Robbins when all we need are the facts delivered in a simple and accurate manner - however your confidence to delete others edits before discussion and to ignore their concerns on the talk pages through a series of transparent platitudes means there is no point trying to make this page better as it seems to belong to you. I doubt you have done this maliciously but that is just as I see it. On plus I know there will be no editors rushing to your defence as clearly this page is your own personal project. I will leave you to it and let you do as you please (no point trying to edit anything on here as you will just delete it immediately..), but if any other editor dares to stumble across this page in the future - may this comment warn you - the man has some powerful friends and perhaps don't waste your time here trying to make the article less biased! Concentrate on those articles which still have the potential to obey the key principles of wiki. I exit the podium thusly and hand over the last speech to no one to you sir where again you will seek to legitimise your behaviour to an absent audience as usual. Reaper7 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

References