Talk:Paul Monaghan (politician)

Removed sections

I noticed some sections regarding potentially offensive language had been removed. There seems to have been some debate in the articles history, and I feel it best to discuss it here.

As far as I can see there are legitimate grounds for keeping the information, in that it was clearly newsworthy enough to;
- A - be reported in several papers (and not just a tabloid)
- B - result in comments (and an apology) being issued by Monaghan himself
- C - it doesn't seem to be weasel words as evidence is provided in the sources, which is in turn is accepted as accurate by Monaghan himself

I think we must remind ourselves that articles are not intended to serve potentially as CV's for their subjects, but are instead intended to include newsworthy and notable information on said individuals. I think potentially offensive comments, especially comments for which Monaghan has apologized, certainly seems to fulfill this criteria - particularly given it has been reported in several sources.

Regards, MrPenguin20 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Distorted Mapping Controversy

I added this

Monaghan complained that the BBC "works to make Scotland literally appear less significant: "The BBC Versus Reality"." because the map of the UK they use on their weather forecasts does not show Scotland as large as one using Mercator Projection. This led to accusations from Dan Hodges and others that "the SNP have literally become flat earthers"

But it was quickly reverted by someone who appears to be an SNP supporter on the alleged grounds of "Poorly sourced POV trivia".

Admittedly these tweets are primary sources but that's OK when they are the authentic posts of the subjects in question. I note that this has now been picked up the The Spectator Weathering the storm: new anti-Scottish BBC plot revealed and if it is further picked up by Reliable Sources I will re-insert it, and suggest that anyone with a track record as something of a CyberNat should abstain from getting involved since its a COI. NBeale (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It also seems that Monaghan " regularly tweets attacks on the BBC" according to [1] The Herald Scotland NBeale (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Academic title

Paul Monaghan refers to himself as 'Dr' and wishes this title to be used in addressing him. The title derives from not from a medical qualification but from his social studies Ph.D. This is specific, noteworthy and factually verified information.

However User Drchriswilliams has now removed this edit three times. Drchriswilliams is an SNP organiser and his edit is apparently actuated by party concerns. It is not standard practice for non-medical doctorate holders to refer to themselves in this way aside from within academic confines, and Drchriswilliams appears not to want Paul Monaghan's use of his title to be mentioned.

This image shows clearly that Paul Monaghan refers to himself on his official livery as 'dr'.

http://paulmonaghan.scot/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/brora_office_openday1.jpg

This vandalism must stop and I am applying to have this page protected. Hubertgrove (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed material that was not properly sourced. It is clear that Monaghan uses the academic title of doctor in some instances and is entitled to do so as the holder of a PhD. This is already in the lead and a later section. Hubertgrove stated that "he prefers to be addressed as doctor", although the webpage on his personal website that was used as a source does not provide verification of this- there is a mix or "Dr Paul Monaghan", "Paul" etc. The use of an academic title is not the same as a preference to be called by it. I have no connection to the SNP. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have just provided a photo from Dr. Monagahan's own official website of his own official constituency office where he clearly refers to himself as 'dr'. There's no argument about this. You must set aside your political POV. This is a factual and verified edit. Stop vandalising it. Hubertgrove (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hubertgrove: I have at no point disputed his use of the title, but I have made several attempts to help after you made inadequately referenced assertions around what his preferences might be. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You do not "help" other editors by blankly "reverting" their verified edits. I say again: Dr. Monaghan's use of his non-medical title is verified by an ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPH from his own ACTUAL WEBSITE. How much more verified do you want?

You are a political activist who seems to think you are protecting your candidate by excising a noteworthy, factual and vertified edit.

I have therefore requested that this article be protected from further edits by you. Hubertgrove (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hubertgrove: The material you added went beyond observing Monaghan's use of an academical title. Neither the page on his personal Member of Parliament website, nor the photo of his constituency office substantiate your claims around how Monaghan prefers to be addressed, they simply verify the usage of an academic title. WP:BLP guidelines suggest that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed. Details of him holding a PhD and that it is in social policy were already described in the lead, and this was also already included in the first section along with details of the institution that granted the award. My edits were intended towards a WP:NPOV in keeping with WP:CREDENTIAL. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have locked the article for two days because of the edit warring. Both of you were approaching blockability, but I always prefer page protection over blocks when possible. My advice to the two of you is 1) calm down, 2) stop throwing around ridiculous accusations of "vandalism" and "BLP violations", 3) discuss here in good faith, and 4) use these two days to maybe come up with some kind of compromise wording that you can both accept. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The most recent suggestion that I had made was that the point that Hubertgrove was trying to address could be expressed in a neutral manner by phrasing it in the following way: As the holder of a PhD, he makes use of the academic title of "Doctor". Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to put this into context, there are several sitting MPs to be officially listed as using their doctorate as part of their name in the British Parliament: Roberta Blackman-Woods, Therese Coffey, Rupa Huq, Julian Lewis, Matthew Offord, Alan Whitehead and others. I don't see any similar concerns raised at the articles for these individuals. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Where there is evidence that these politicians use their non-medical doctorates as their preferred title, I will edit their pages accordingly. I propose the wording: "Though the holder of a non-medical-related PhD, he prefers to use the title of 'Doctor' in his political life". I should remind you that a medical doctorate, like all doctorates, is an academic doctorate. My wording avoids this redundancy. I hope this now settles matters. Hubertgrove (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any evidence of a preference, simply of use. The wording that you are suggesting here is still pejorative and non-neutral. As with the other selection of articles I have pointed out, the nature of the PhD is already clearly described and referenced. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just looking closer at your last comment about "medical doctorates", most people who use the title of Doctor in the House of Commons don't have a medical doctorates (except perhaps Oliver Letwin). Currently most of the MPs who use the title of doctor are medically-qualified and hold medical degrees such as Bachelor of Medicine, Batchelor of Surgery (MB ChB). Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I should also point out that your suggestion does not appear to be consistent with how articles on MPs are currently dealt with on Wikipedia. For example, there is nothing in the article about Jeremy Hunt to describe that he was addressed as "The Right Honourable Jeremy Hunt" in the previous parliament, but is now just Mr Hunt. Nothing in the article about Vince Cable to explore the fact that he had a doctorate and was "Right Honourable" but wasn't generally addressed in the Commons using either. The only real time that I can see that how an MP is addressed is explored is where someone has changed how they are addressed over their political career, such as the various titles of Margaret Hodge being described in both in the body of the article and the lead. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)