Talk:Stewart Jackson

Which Creative Commons licence for Jackson's website?

Jackson's website at [1] contains a note at the bottom of the left-hand margin saying that "Except for the constituency maps, the text and photographs on this site are released under a Creative Commons Licence." Unfortunately, he does not say which CC licence, and there is no link from the CC logo to a specific licence. It would be nice to know, since it's possible that the licence might be Wiki-compatible - though of course if it's non-commercial use only, it would not be. Loganberry (Talk) 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when did reproduction on Wikipedia constitute a commercial use? It's a not-for-profit organisation after all. If it's BY-NC-SA is should be fine. You could try dropping an email and asking though.--Topperfalkon (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BY-NC-SA wouldn't be fine. Images used on Wikipedia must either be available under a free licence which allows commercial usage or, in some limited circumstances, used under "fair use". See Wikipedia:Image policy which states "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use." If we were looking for an image of Jackson to illustrate this article then Wikipedia's policies wouldn't allow us to use fair use since he is a living person and it would be quite feasible for someone to obtain or create a freely licensed image. Adambro (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, fair enough. Still, I'd email them and ask them what flavour of CC license they're using--Topperfalkon (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Excessive rollbacks of "Controversy" sections

There is an incessant and selective redaction of any Mr Jackson's controversies posted going on here. Worrying behaviour for a political figure's page.

Actually, there is excessive posting to the controversy sections. Please review our guides to reliable sourcing and undue weight. TNXMan 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When did UK news websites and the BBC stop being reliable sources? More to the point, you could have discussed the issue of sources and requested better sources before reverting. --Topperfalkon (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

They never did and are still included in the article. Twitter feeds and Facebook album pages are not. TNXMan 15:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Twitter feeds were primary sources. If being "straight from the horses mouth" isn't good enough why should a news website be?--Topperfalkon (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Sources used on Wikipedia must be independent secondary sources. Furthermore, the whole incident is edging very close to receiving undue weight in context of the larger article. TNXMan 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Importantly these rollbacks are causing a stir on twitter, partically the removal of the 'someone who's interested' tweet. Might be work explaining to them clearly in a way those people will understand. - Andy

From what I can tell the primaries were used to reference the arguments made by several pro sex-ed twitter users, not as a description of the event as a whole. From looking at WP:PRIMARY that falls under policy-accepted use of primary sources. The BBC source was then brought in later to describe the entire event. At the very least, the users who originally wrote that section made an attempt to source and write it according to policy, whilst establishing details of the events. I also don't understand your rationale for bringing undue weight into the discussion.--Topperfalkon (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit with new references for quotes should now pass verifiability check. Please discuss further edits first, as the removal of info previously has caused a bit of a stir.--Topperfalkon (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the original entry on the Twitter controversy. I thought it was fairly objective but clearly many people feel the need to edit, remove it altogether, and turn it into something a Wiki entry should not be. Admins is there anything you can do to stop the vandalism? On another point I think it may be appropriate to add a reference to the Guardian science blog article which also referred to the controversy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/sep/01/sex-education-stis-politicians - however I leave it to the admins to decide whether it is appropriate to add this as I don't want to get drawn in to the tit for tat. Syphillite (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I haven't seen your original edit. The last edits I have made were to try and conform to Tnxman's concerns regarding verifiable sources and neutrality. I'll have a look at that article for you (I'm not an admin, but I feel can I try to balance the neutrality of this article and have so far).--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the section back to my edits and added the reference. I'm not happy with the structure, so it may need some restructuring or re-wording. The edit by the IP address that keeps adding the paragraph about "some supporter in the comments..." etc. has been removed again because that paragraph definitely isn't well sourced and Wikipedia definitely isn't the place for settling an argument because they didn't check to see your replies on a comments section. Anyway, could use some help here. Oh, and I RPP'ed the page, but it was rejected. If there's a problem I'll make another request.--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on this Topperfalkon - I think the facts on this story are fairly clear. Syphillite (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They Work For You

I have added a link to 'they work for you where every spoken question & answer as well as all written answers. I am totally neutral on this site, but now people can make a more informed decision based on his work so far. I see my whole section of homophobia has been removed. No reason given.

Since this needs Discussing, apparently

Homophobic Accusation The incident was brought to light on Facebook on the 30th march & was picked up by Buzzfeeed[15]. The Pink Paper published an article in which Mr. Jackson was accused of homophobia[16] which he defended himself firstly by saying he didn't use any homophobic-specific words in his reply & then 2 days later, by stating that since the dissolution of parliament, he was no longer an MP and therefore only replying as a candidate and if elected, he would work for all of the people in Peterborough. He added that his personal views on same-sex marriage would not interfere with this. He has, in the past, voted against same-sex marriage and gay rights.

It ISN'T on the page, I have referenced it - it's a fact. I only said their had been an Accusation. Putting it in and letting people decide is the important thing. It onlu happened 2 weeks ago so arguing that 'it hasn't changed in 10 months' doesn't hold water.

Since he is no longer an MP, doesn't Wiki's balance depend on them having details on all the candidates, not just the previous incumbent? If not, maybe just remove until after election?

Thanks for taking to discussion. The story IS on the page: the bottom of the main section mentions that he told a constituent to "not bother him" when she said she wouldn't be voting for him because he opposed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. His comments on gay marriage are also mentioned earlier in the article. Neither Pink News nor Buzzfeed describe Jackson or his actions as "homophobic". That might be your opinion, it might be the opinion of many other people and it may be entirely justified, but it's not Wikipedia's role to express that.

And in answer to your second question, Wikipedia does not require details on all the candidates (apart from including their names on the separate constituency page). In fact the official policy is the opposite: there's an explicit ban on creating pages for election candidates unless they are either famous for other reasons or have served in national government. Whilst this might not see balanced, Wikipedia is not an election campaign platform and its a bit more understandable when you consider how many thousands of people stand for election worldwide each year and how little reliable information there is on most of them.

This is not at all how it was originally reported in the local newspaper. The writer did disagree with Jackson's view on same-sex marriage but she appeared more bothered that his mailing list did not use her married name. Not an uncommon event with mailing lists. She ended her message “Please never write to me again.”. He replied “Please feel free to never bother me again." which I found reasonable in the circumstances. http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/peterborough-candidate-stewart-jackson-defends-don-t-bother-me-again-message-to-resident-1-6666300.

I should add he is my MP and I cannot stand the man

Cannonmc (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph COI

The Telegraph writes that politicians have had pages whitewashed by users connected to the legislature. Also on Indy and IBTimes.Callinus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Pink News : Tory MP’s Wikipedia entry ‘edited from Parliament’ to remove gay rights criticism

An 'exclusive' report in Pink News on 25th July 2015 claims Stewart Jackson's Wikipedia article has been edited from inside Parliament to remove reference to a disdainful message he sent a lesbian constituent - http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/25/tory-mps-wikipedia-entry-edited-from-parliament-to-remove-gay-rights-criticism/ Damson88 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

His message was neither disdainful nor anything to do with her sexuality. See my comment above. Her message and his reply are about on a par childish, really. If we are going to condemn people (and, IMO, there is much to condemn Jackson for) let's do it based on what he actually did. Cannonmc (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about 'condemning' people or even taking sides. It's about reporting information from reliable sources in a balanced manner. Your opinion of the statement quoted by the source isn't relevant unless someone has tried to add that kind of opinionated language to the article. TricksterWolf (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Partial nevermind on what I just said; I see now you were referring to the header claiming 'to remove gay rights criticism'. In that context what you said makes more sense. TricksterWolf (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the BBC article quotes a lecturer saying that the internet is changing the relationship with constituents - this isn't a purely LGBT issue. Ideally, the story about Wiki changes could have sourcing in mainstream publications, because in some articles on politicians coverage of issues that appear in LGBT specialist media and not mainstream media raises issues of due weight. This is fine here, but in general try to find mainstream outlets. -- Callinus (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Claims made which do not directly involve the person named in the BLP do not belong - it is a contentious claim which requires strong reliable sources directly naming Jackson as the person making the edits per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph ref doesn't claim that any specific named entity made changes, only that IP addresses from within parliament are making changes - this could easily come from a staffer of another politician of the same party removing details without the knowledge of any one politician. I've changed the language to reflect this. -- Callinus (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What direct relevence does it have to Jackson as a living person? Collect (talk)

Blackmailing a constituent

After loosing his seat in 2017, Stewart Jackson contacted a former constituent who had been critical of him on Facebook to call him a "thick chav". Jackson blackmailed Christian Stanley, a businessman in his constituency, by saying: "If you print any shit about me on Facebook in the future you will regret it."--86.175.29.152 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References