Talk:Mark Oaten/Archive 1

Japan

Please can the following text be added to the end of the section on Oaten's politics: "His political achievements include introducing the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 and leading the cross-party group which obtained compensation from the Japanese government for British PoWs who had been mistreated by the Japanese during World War 2. He won plaudits for his negotiations with the government over its plan to hold prisoners for 90 days without trial." I declare an interest - I used to work for Mark in 2000. I was not personally involved in any of the things mentioned in my suggested amendment and I have never been a member of the Liberal Democrat party. Also, I cannot help but reply to the person below who wishes to include references to coprophilia. The only people who know what happened are Mark and the gentleman involved: the former has stayed silent and the latter was being paid for his information and so would have said anything. Jamesthomas2000 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he is the Hon Mark Oaten MP, not the Rt Hon Mark Oaten MP Jamesthomas2000 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Coprophilia

Someone politically biased is trying to remove this information (about the Coprophilia) and similar information from the Simon Hughes page - both absolutely factual - from the Wikipedia entries. Please help by re-introducing them if they are edited out by the so-called editors and self-appointed vandalism police.

The sex act was "Coprophilia". I've added it to the foot of the page. Despite confirmation of this in various newspapers, and even open discussion about it on BBC Radio 4, the "anti-vandalism police" from Canada (! - what would they know about it?!) have removed this edit. I will therefore continue to re-introduce the Coprophilia reference to the page.

The article does mention that it is coprophilia, with a reference and stating only the facts not your POV. You seem to think we need a biography in the image caption. You have been warned about vandalism on your talk page three times, and are about to break the WP:3RR, you will be banned if you continue. Joe D (t) 16:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The reference is Private Eye. Does everybody know what sort of publication that is? Jon.baldwin 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a quite extensive article on it, you could try reading that.

I suggest that those objecting to the use of Private Eye as a source have not read it very much, if at all. Yes, it is most well known for its satire, but it also publishes serious stories and news that other publications don’t have the cojones to publish. It’s pretty easy to work out which articles are satire, and which are not. Bombot 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oaten's travails

It warms the heart of this British Conservative to see the decline and fall of Oaten- one of the few Lib Dems who had the potential to rescue his party from its current status as the dustbin vote in UK politics. The implosion of the Lib Dems in recent weeks is wonderful to behold as it was unexpected at the current time.

Please don't use Wikipedia, even talk pages, as a soapbox. Thanks. The Land 19:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that we need to find out more regarding the "bizarre sex act too revolting to describe" so that his wife and children can have closure.

well, if there is a verifiable source, we can add it to the article. The Land 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't as bad as the News of the World made out, depending on your views on what is bad. But I won't write the allegation because it would be somewhat distasteful for people to read that a politician paid someone to do that on them. Gretnagod 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise that's been mentioned below under Private Eye. Gretnagod 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Private Eye and Guido Fawkes blog (and several other blogs) have made plain that the activity for which Mr. Oaten "paid extra" was to be defecated on. I suppose it is more usual for politicians to do that sort of thing to others, rather than to have it done to them, and it's questionnable whether that can actually be described as a "sex act", but I think it's worth mentioning in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.11.71 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On this theme, why no popular culture section to the article? Though short lived the use of "smells like Mark Oaten's briefcase", used to denote something smelling particularly repugnant, was notably widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.73.9 (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Going by the URL (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news2.shtml), I doubt the link to the News Of The World story is going to last the week... do they archive their stories at all? 84.142.181.164 20:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Should Wikipedia articles link to unverifiable gossip websites?

Although there is no offical archive of the NoW article wouldn't a verifiable source (BBC, or broadsheet newspaper) be better and just say "published in News Of The World on 22 January 2006"?

• The OxfordGossip link provided has the News of the World article published in full.
• Right so we are not allowed to insert gossip into Wikipedia articles but we can link to unverifiable gossip (BTW wrong from what I heard!), that is rather stupid, what's the difference?
• Published gossip is different - we can say X Newspaper said Y, we can't say random gossip because it could be the author and their friends. Secretlondon 21:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Language of article

He paid for his relationship with the rent boy, it was prostitution. This article makes out that he just had an affair. That's why his standing as home-affairs spokesman was untenable as he would conceivably have to vote and comment on policy with regards prostitution.

The article states “a sex scandal involving male prostitutes", “relationship with a 23-year-old rentboy”, “sex with two rentboys”, I think that's pretty clear that he was using prostitutes! It doesn't once suggest a non-financial relationship/affair.

But there is a difference between "paying for sex with a prostitute", and "having a (non-paying) relationship with someone who is prostitute". Certainly most people would assume the former anyway, but the careful reader who doesn't want to make assumptions is left unsure of what actually happened. Mdwh 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it should say "a sex scandal involving male prostitutes" or simply "a sex scandal involving prostitutes" - i.e. should the gender be mentioned in the first article? Would mentioning the gender be POV perhaps suggest the scandal is worse because it is same-sex, or is it POV to ignore a detail that, (although it shouldn't) makes the story more interesting or indeed because of its relevance to his marital status? I'm unsure. If it were a female prostitute, I double we would explicitly say so in the first paragraph.

• No your right we wouldn't state it was a female prostitute if it were, unless he had previously portrayed himself as gay. As he is a married family man (which rightly or wrongly insinuates that he's straight) the gender of the prostitute is notable.

1997 Election/By-election

Private Eye before the outing ran stories about Oaten's outburst at the 1997 election result after loosing the first ballot. Worth a mention?

• Don't bother, one of the other Lib-Dem supporting Wikipedians will remove it for being "POV" or "unverified" or whatever bollocks they can think of. Theonlyway 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Private Eye

I am led to believe that the HP Sauce section of Private Eye #1151, 16th February 06, could be used as a souce that would allow us to include the coprophilia claim without it violating WP:V and WP:OR. Can anybody check that edition and confirm? Joe D (t) 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed, it is actually in the Street of Shame section, and reads: "An unspeakable act of degredation" and "a bizarre sex act too revolting to describe" both refer to the sexual practice known as coprophilia - Private Eye, No. 1151, 3rd February - 16 February 2006. JFT 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article as written currently appears to suggest that Private Eye actually broke the original story, whereas it just "clarified" the specific alledged act(s). In fact PE managed to write words to the effect that "There are no skeletons in Oaten's closet" in the issue immediately before the scandal broke, as it reviewed the candidates for Lib Dem leadership. (This is all from memory, I don't keep my old copies). Is it worth clarifying this? TrulyBlue 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Shadow or not shadow?

There have been a couple of edits debating whether Mr Oaten should be described as "Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary" or "Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman". The term "shadow" has traditionally been reserved for the main opposition party, but for the past few years the LibDems have described their frontbench team as their own "Shadow cabinet". As far as I'm aware, his "official" title, insofar as he had one, was "Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary". This is the title by which he was described by his own party, in publications such as the House of Commons Weekly Bulletin (see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmwib/wb041127/libdem.htm), and in many if not most newspapers, including those not particularly supportive of the LibDems, such as the Telegraph.

In my view, "Shadow Home Secretary", the title by which he described himself, should be used unless there is a particular good reason not to, and I haven't seen one yet. From my understanding, "Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman" is not a title used either by the LibDems or parliament itself.

Additional comments and sources welcome. Enchanter 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Would agree, provided always that it is Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary. It is the term used by the Lib Dems, parliamentary papers etc and if the words Liberal Democrat are included cannot lead to confusion. Also, internationally 'shadow' is used for all opposition parties, not just the main one. Paulleake 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the continued editing on this I've been reading the naming conventions to try and get some guidance and the following parts would suggest that Oaten's (then) position in the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party - that of Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary (as defined by its members) be named as such.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage: Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations) It is a name that has been used by the BBC, the Guardian and other media (although they also use the home affairs spokesman bit).

Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) It is a name used on the Parliament website and the Liberal Democrat website.

Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term) The Lib Dems have 'Shadow Cabinet meetings' and decide which front bench spokespeople are of shadow cabinet rank or not and style them as 'Shadow X'. It is also descriptive in that Oaten was the Liberal Democrat 'shadow' of the Home Sec.

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include: Does the subject have a moral right to use the name? Does the subject have a legal right to use the name? Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights? Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

The guidance also says that "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name." If you asked Mark Oaten or whoever his successor will be you would find they think of themselves as Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary.

If you disagree with my analysis, give some good reasons based on Wikipedia guidelines (rather than asserting moral rights etc to use the name 'Shadow Cabinet' etc). Paulleake 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter what newspapers say and so on, or even what the liberals think. Oaten WAS Liberal Democrat Spokesman for Home Affairs and the word shadow does not even come in to play on official papers, and the actual title he had in the Commons, and the title he is reffered to by in the Commons. This must be changed immediately. If this is disputed, I am going straight to formal mediation. unsigned comment by 84.64.161.206

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with Paulleake's analysis, unless and until someone can come up with any convincing arguments in line with Wikipedia policy. Enchanter 20:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

84.64.161.206. The HoC website lists the post that Oaten used to hold as Shadow Home Secretary [1]. Paulleake 22:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

I think it's time this page was unprotected. The controversy is more than a year old and the last instance of vandalism was in May. Besides, there's a punctuation error I'm dying to fix... -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 06:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Scandal and resignation

Does this need to take up so much space? Carn't more info be put in about his carrer - he's just published quite a good book for example, and is booked in for a high profile US lecture tour when he finishes as an MP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty1985 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Wikiproject Tag

I have started a discussion about it's appropriateness for inclusion here: WP:BLP/N —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked on the BLPN for the discussion to take place here. I doubt you have even a remote possibility of getting that tag off of this article, and I am actually curious what harm you think it is doing here.--Jarhed (talk)07:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure of the best place to have this discussion. To me the presence of the LGBT tag could infer that someone has been Identified as or have Identified themseves as LGBT which I would argue is not the case here. Having had another look at the project page and the comments left at WP:BLP/N I withdraw my objection although it still seems a little unfair, and I apologise for being awkward. --Wintonian (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am always happy when consensus is achieved.Jarhed (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rumour?

Rumours that the sex sessions had involved coprophilia were subsequently reported in Private Eye"Street of Shame", Private Eye, No. 1151, 3rd February - 16 February 2006. and an opinion piece in the The Daily Telegraph.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/05/14/do1405.xmlr

This is as it says unsubstantiated rumor and opinion piece, the fact that we need to say that in the article makes it not worth inclusion and adds nothing of any value at all, we have the three in a bed romp with male prostitutes and imo the additional unconfirmed and I imagine not widely reported sexually titillating rumor would be better removed. Any objection? Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I vote remove the rumors as a BLP violation.Jarhed (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Jarhed.  Done Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the coprohilia allegation is a minor detail that should be left out. It's one of the major reasons why this scandal is still well remembered. I didn't add it in lightly. I did so with three references ([2] [3] [4]) to show that it was openly discussed in the mainstream press. In my opinion, this information should be included in the article. 86.161.140.175 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Its tabloid titillation and unsubstantiated, we have no reason to continue propagating it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the three references are tabloids. This went far beyond tabloid titillation. Three mainstream press citations should be sufficient to note that this was considered a newsworthy detail. 86.161.140.175 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

They commented on it then but these days we are not going to be a vehicle to propagate such titillating sexual claims, we have the sex with prostitutes issue and the three in a bed issue and that is all confirmed and admitted by the subject which is plenty, if the readers want all the sexually titillating details they can read the links. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that the third reference commented on it three years after the actual event as one of the few key details they felt was necessary to summarise the events that occurred. You may think personally think that the details in the article at the moment are "plenty", but these three mainstream non-tabloid press sources felt it was a very notable detail, and I can see no reason why it's wrong for Wikipedia to note that this was a detail that's been reported in the mainstream press both at the time and in summaries of the incident published several years later. 86.161.140.175 (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is just stupid now. The reference to shit should be part of the main article. Someone here obviously has either a vested interest in keeping this out of the article or they just don't like the idea of someone eating shit. Either way, it's no excuse for not having the shit as part of the main entry.