Talk:Adam Werritty

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

Speedy delete - not for now[edit]

currently under construction, will flesh out enough detail to possibly avert deletion. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advisor[edit]

re: widely known as an "adviser He may have been mistaken by others as an advisor, but his is not an advisor unless he is on govt payroll. Replace my comments. In future, "discuss on article talk do not revert". Cheers. S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.81.226 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Adviser - anyone who gives advice. Adviser - special goverment employee.

it's fair to say, as we do, that he was an adviser, in a business capacity. The Guardian today referred to him in a headline as "Liam Fox adviser...". Was he a government advisor? no. Was he an adviser? quite clearly he was. --Semitransgenic (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A headline is neither here nor there. He called himself an advisor (sic). No one else says he was. He's self-styled. Ironman1104 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
latest reports seem to support the view of Werritty as someone who was employed as an adviser - not someone who believed he was an adviser, or pretended he was an adviser - from the news reports I've read only those engaged in damage limitation are continuing to contend that he was a "self-styled" adviser. --Semitransgenic (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the reports support the view that Werrity was funded by persons currently (but not for long) unannounced in order to get access to Fox and his meetings. That doesn't make him an adviser (nor an advisor) of Fox. Adviser is what he syled himself. Hence, self styled! Ironman1104 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there are clearly two points of view on this, depending on who is reporting, and who is offering an opinion. Just because no (from what I can see) explicit statement from Fox regarding Werritty's role has been released, we cannot discount the wide range of reports on the matter that support the view of Werritty as an adviser to Fox. This idea that Werrity was floating around the globe after Fox like some kind of fan boy is plain silly. Werritty was a paid adviser: that Fox was not footing the bill for the "advice," does not negate the fact that he was an adviser, and was viewed as such by those who employed him, and those whom he had direct contact with while travelling abroad with Fox. We have multiple cites referring to the man as an adviser, so as it currently stands, it does appear to be your opinion against the available verifiable sources. Perhaps other editors have something to offer on this? --Semitransgenic (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think it should be presented like that so early in the lede that he was reportedly an advisor - what has he advised Fox? - it should be stated there the strong details that are for sure - he accompanied fox on voyages and went to meetings - there is no real details that he advised fox in any way - that speculation imo is not correct for the lede. I also don't think he should have a biography at wikipedia - he is a one event headliner and all this content imo would be better condensed in section of the Fox blp - he is notable. Or perhaps fork all the bloat out to an article titled - Resignation of Liam Fox - Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
disagree note the word reportedly. There are more than enough RS sources presented on the matter. Werritty's notability would seem to be incontrovertible at this point, hence the existence of the article. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Werritty is unqualified to advise Fox about anything, I don't think advice will be an issue when the investigation is over but lets see how it develops. Werritty is only notable in relation to Fox - Fox's name is mentioned twice as many times in this so called biography as the subjects name - All the citations are related to the connection to Fox. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam_Werritty#Role in The Atlantic Bridge[edit]

I removed this section with the edit summary of, "remove - bloat - the Alantic bridge has its own article and this was simply duplicated here - there is an internal link in the lede" - ...Its just duplicated content from the article The Atlantic Bridge and serves to only bloat this BLP an internal link is already in the lede and a small comment elsewhere is plenty here imo - the removal was reverted with a comment that consensus is required to remove it, so posting here for opinions about the section. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing both, fail to see duplication. Calling it bloat is erroneous, text relates directly to the article subject. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of meetings: Inaccurate and not sourced[edit]

Additionally, over a 17-month period, ending October 2011, Werritty was present at 40 of Fox's 70 recorded engagements.

As Sec Def Fox had hundreds of meetings. 'of Fox's 70 recorded engagements' should be clarified or deleted. It cannot be accurate as it stands.1JohnHoffman (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"close friend"[edit]

Since no source is cited, I assume that these are scare quotes not quoting someone. If it IS quoting someone, then a citation needs to follow it directly. If not, the scare quotes have to go because there's nothing scary about being a close friend. Right now this seems to be implying something, and that cannot remain in a BLP. LaMona (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't scare quotes. They were more like a nudge and a wink, implying a sexual relationship while unable to provide any evidence. I'm glad to see they've been removed. Maproom (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Werritty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Werritty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Werritty&oldid=1210945474"