Talk:Owen Paterson

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

Ongoing neutrality disputes[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have recently tagged this page in relation to an ongoing Political POV dispute related to ongoing current political events involving the subject of this article. The recent vote on 3 November 2021 to avert the suspension of Owen Paterson MP in relation to the Parliamentary Committee on Standards' findings on breaches of rules on paid advocacy, declarations of interests and use of House of Commons resources[1]. Looking at this relevant factual source, I am of the opinion that the vote today does not negate the initial findings of the parliamentary report which deemed Owen Paterson MP to be in breach of the aforementioned parliamentary standards/rules.

Any further discussion directed here in relation to the best wording on the article to maintain a neutral POV would be greatly appreciated. Johntalk 23:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maguirej03 and Code Zero: could you be more specific about what you think the POV issue is? Jr8825 • Talk 03:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's not clear what the problem is. The article needs updating following yesterday's events but from what I've read, it by no way means that he has been cleared of the allegations. SmartSE (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Third Report of Session 2021-22 - Mr Owen Paterson - Committee on Standards". House of Commons. Retrieved 3 November 2021.

Paterson's claims of innocence in the lead[edit]

I'm not convinced they're appropriate for the lead. It's hard to judge, but since it's not a legal case I'm inclined to exclude his protestations of innocence and keep it to the facts (i.e. he was found to have clearly and unambiguously breached lobbying rules multiple times by the independent watchdog for regulating MPs). His denial obviously belongs in the article body, but I don't see what it achieves in the lead. Most RS don't report his claims as equal to the findings of the watchdog, see Reuters for example (about as non-partisan as you can hope to get) discusses his denial in the second half of its coverage. Jr8825 • Talk 14:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some mention of his denial might be appropriate in the lead but the quote from him and the info about his wife's suicide seems like giving undue weight to me. SmartSE (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think his denials, and rejection of the process are important as they led to the exposure of the lack of natural justice in it, and the subsequent kerfuffle in parliament. Besides, WP:BLPPUBLIC requires it as does WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: I appreciate the BLP considerations and on reflection I agree his dispute over the process should get a mention in the lead. The second issue is the amount of weight we give his comments – can it be reduced to "In October 2021 the Commons Commissioner for Standards found him to have breached the paid advocacy rules with a recommended 30-day suspension, although Paterson disputed the findings and said the investigatory process had been unfair"? Jr8825 • Talk 14:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, just browsing this article after reading of his resignation, I think it inappropriate to have the lobbyist thing in the lead sentence. schetm (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have gone ahead and removed that from the opening sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the aspects of the lead regarding current events should be reduced to simply "Owen Paterson resigned on 4 November 2021 amid controversy surrounding a report concluding he had breached parliamentary standards". Currently it's too long and is effectively just trying to recreate an entire section of the page that already exists. Apache287 (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...after being found to have breached..." would be more accurate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
all claims of innocence should be removed, it's WP:MANDY, guy was found guilty of breaching the code, it's WP:VER and WP:RS, end of. Acousmana 12:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apache287, why have you removed it from the lead whilst this discussion is still ongoing? WP:MANDY is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy, and it does not take precedence over WP:BLPPUBLIC, which is a policy, and which says: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto The section you link to doesn't defend your point though. It's arguing the denial of a mere allegation should be included. This is beyond an allegation at this point and instead following a full blown parliamentary investigation that investigated the allegation and found that it did occur. While WP:MANDY is an essay, not de jure policy, the argument is valid here. That of course he's going to deny he did it and claim he's the victim here. I'd agree that should be included in the relevant lower section where it can be properly scrutinised by the overwhelming reliable sources detailing the report it shouldn't be present in the lead due to the fact it is an unbacked expected assertion against detailed evidence. Apache287 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is your opinion, that doesn't mean you can bypass this discussion, you should await the outcome. Notice too that it is a contested "finding" by the commissioner (one person), and one that is of major significance as it highlighted the potential lack of of natural justice in the current disciplinary procedure, and led to widespread calls to have that procedure overhauled. What followed next probably would not have happened if there was widespread respect for the "finding" and there weren't serious doubts about the integrity of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mate the only people "contesting" it are a single political party that the person belongs to, not any form of political consensus across the board. The same party by the way that have openly attacked any independent body investigating them such as the UK Electoral Commission. There was not a single attempt to "reform" this body before Owen Paterson was found by both the Commissioner and then unanimously by a cross-party parliamentary commission to have broken the rules. This "controversy" is quite frankly expected from the modern Conservative party, who are copying the Trump playbook in openly attacking public institutions that don't do what they say. Apache287 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ours is not to analyse or interpret, ours is to follow the reliable sources, and they have reported the denials, analyses of those denials, and the ensuing kafuffle and how unprecedented it was, from day 1. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not for you to insist that a denial with no evidence is of equal weight to an evidenced report via independent investigation then reaffirmed by Select Committee. Apache287 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
after a two year investigation, by a committee made up of seven cross-party MPs and seven lay members, he was found guilty - using a system designed to assess whether or not an individual has engaged in a “corrupt practice” and “brought the House into disrepute.” Paterson is guilty as charged. If he wasn't, he'd still be in his job. Denial amounts to nothing more than PR, it's of no value to the article. Acousmana 16:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is to look for a consensus on whether to remove the denial, or not. It is clear from today's media reports that the need for more safeguards in the process is still being discussed, which might never have arisen without this case having been "found" the way it was. We can't ignore the weight it is being given in the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It is clear from today's media reports", irrelevant, what's clear is that he is guilty, after a two year investigation, using the current system. Any reports on "more safeguards" is essentially WP:NOTNEWS and as such does not concern us here. Acousmana 16:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that today those in the government calling for more safeguards are now openly distancing that from the Paterson case. It's a face-saving exercise where the conclusions in the Paterson case are now being treated by people who yesterday said they were wrong as gospel truth. It's a Conservative party farce.
"Speaking on Friday, Mr Zahawi said the government still wanted to change the standards system, but it had "made a mistake" in attempting to "conflate" this with Mr Paterson's case." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59175448) Apache287 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation need for the motion amendments[edit]

Sumbuddi, can you remember which source you used for this edit of yours that added the details of the motion amendment, as you didn't provide it with your edit. There is a {{Citation needed}} tag on it, so it is liable be be deleted if the source is not added soon. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally provided the source like ten words before . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owen_Paterson&diff=1053506279&oldid=1053504118 Sumbuddi (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Owen_Paterson&oldid=1207114711"