Talk:Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green/Archive 1

on the history of deleted comments
Dbdb wrote this: "If anyone bothers to look through the airbrushed history of the talk page they will see (actually not see but see the fingerprints and who did it) the attempts to keep this issue hidden"

That is not correct. The Deletion process, also called 'Oversighting' or "revdelling", erases not only the comment allegedly in violation of wiki policy, but also intermediate edits that are completely unrelated. Therefore by looking at the usernames on the page history, you can tell very little (if anything) about who did what. My edits have been about his relation to the Baronets, for example, but my edits are listed as 'removed' just like all the rest of the comments. It is IMHO a weakness of the way the deletion system works. See the bottom of my talk page, where an admin has been kind enough to explain this to me. ((update nov 9 2012, since dozens of newspapers and many other wiki editors/admins are discussing the allegations now, and McAlpine himself released a statement, i dont feel its improper anymore to discuss them and have made some edits to this talk page (not the article page, its locked) discussing them )) Decora (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Decora. I am now even more concerned about the history of this talk page.  I distincly remember reading here that protection had been either added or requested for the main page because of claimed repetitive vandalism.  I am assuming the 'vandalism' was people attempting to put in thje allegations of what is now in the public domain. Agreed that, until the Guardian story today, they should not be in, but what disturbs me is that I distincly remember that the censor, whoever they were, claimed that the vandalism was about Mcalpine's nationality. That is disinegnous to say the least.  I regard it as deliberately misleading and an attempt to cover up the now public allegations from Wikipedia or indeed any discussion of them (which could have been done on the talk page without listing or identifying them). Even more disturbing is that as Decora points out I can no longer see who did it or indeed what they did.  Please could someone with better Wiki knowledge than me get to the bottom of it?Dbdb (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You would do well to avail yourself of WP:AGF, and not refer to admins who are just trying to protect Wikipedia as "censors" or throw around phrases like "cover up" and "deliberately misleading" - all of which infer negative connotations and do not accurately describe what has happened here. The WP:BLP rule has been enforced (more than once it seems) and rightly so at the time. You might also consider that Wikipedia admins are human, and therefore very occasionally make mistakes. I'm not suggesting this has happened here, but if you have doubts then contact the admin in question (or another admin) who will be able to check. If you have concerns with the "Oversight" deletion function available to admins (which is used to remove potentially illegal or libellous material) then this article's talk page is not the correct forum to air those concerns; try the main policy/admin noticeboards instead. You may well have some legitimate concerns as Decora has elaborated on above, but again this is not the right place. C 1 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've checked through all the removed edits here and those on the main article that haven't been completely removed (some of the earlier ones) and all of them are legitimate (necessary, in fact). Although, as Decora says, some comments were rather caught in the cross-fire, the measures were taken as they wildly infringed key policies and guidelines (as well as potentially being illegal, at least in the UK). (Emperor (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC))


 * My concern was not and is not that the deleted comments should not have been deleted.  My concern is and remains that the reasons given for the deletions, namely arguments over McAlpine's nationality, look like they were deliberately designed to cover up the real reason for deletion namely the libellous peadophile allegations. Nor was I concerned about other comments deleted in the crossfire.  Please can someone find the now disappeared 'nationality vandalism' reference and who put it in?  Given all that has happened since it is frankly incredible to me that the padeo reference were accidentally deleted in the crossfire of an argument about Mcapline's nationality. If I am right in my disbelief then wikipedia has been abused. By the way I politely request you don't patronise me (c1).Dbdb (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Disappointed to see the talk page is semi protected. It devalues Wikipedia IMHO.

I am assuming it is to do with current allegations against Lord McAlpine originally published (and never sued) in the long defunct magazine Scallywag and now widely seen on twitter and the internet, to mention one: David Icke's homepage (also no suing in progress that I can see). If this comment is removed that will kindly confirm that to me. If so as I say Wikipedia is devalued and is starting to look a bit like Encyclopaedia Britannica, compared to Google and Twitter at least Dbdb (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

This might come as a shock, but an encyclopaedia is supposed to look more like an encyclopaedia than it does Twitter. It is not supposed to be a place to air libellous and extremely damaging gossip which has already been established to be untrue, both by judicial enquiry and (as of a week ago) the admission of confused identity by the complainant.

Nothing genuinely encyclopaedic will change quickly and in these cases, where there's so much potential to do harm, it's always best to wait until the facts are known rather than rely on rumours in the desperation to publish quickly. BearAllen (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about censorship of the talk page not the enclopedia page. It was quite stunning to me to see the talk page on protection and a lot of talk clearly airbrushed off it, even with fake reaasons given presumably to try and conceal the allegations. Anyway it is all in the public domain now read todays Guardian.Dbdb (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that reliable sources have reported on these allegations does not mean they should be included in the article. The section on them has just been removed, and rightly so: it clearly violates WP:BLP. These allegations are known to be false and seriously defamatory, and are not significant to Lord McAlpine's life; including them in the article is, therefore, utterly unacceptable. Even here on the talk page we must be cautious; while there's more leeway on talk pages to discuss the contents of the article, BLP still applies here as well. Protecting the talk page was unfortunate, but necessary. Robofish (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the talk page is not protected -- it's just that previous posts have been removed. I think now that McAlpine has made his own statement it is not sensible to prevent discussion of this issue here (i.e., discussion of whether/how to cover the issue in the article).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Robofish here. While no doubt it's no longer defamatory to mention these allegations as allegations he has publicly denied, Wikipedia,as Robofish points out elsewhere, nevertheless has its own standards on what may be repeated in BLPs and I think Robofish is quite correct to delete the material on what I understand of those standards. Given the nature of the allegations I really can't see how anyone can reasonably demur. Of course the situation might change, but presently the allegations surely shouldn't appear. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Much as I agree that BLP holds precedence, if we had woken up at 10:00 this morning, what could we write from WP:RS? How many times are notable figures forced into the public domain to issue denials? Washing away the internet tittle-tattle through time (we do't even know if he was the person Newsnight were hinting at), what would we write in his theoretical obituary in say a years time? We don't need to or even should mention the gossip-related Newsnight and internet rumours, but it would seem sensible and right to insert a simple one liner (no need to embelish it with a section) on his issuing a strong and factually based denail re the allegations. When so many WP:RS exist for this, echoing his own well reported denial would seem both factual and fair to him/his resultant reflective biography/our principles. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yes the talk page was and is still semi protected, just look for yourself. If anyone bothers to look through the airbrushed history of the talk page they will see (actually not see but see the fingerprints and who did it) the attempts to keep this issue hidden, and lucicrously disguise it as issues about hios nationality.  As regards the article istself it is shameful that the allegations and Mcapline's response, headline news, is removed.  Are you really saying that such allehgations which are headline now, and will be disussed in the years to come, can only be mentioned when they are proved in a court of law?  That is ridiculous.  I think we need an enquiry into this wikipedia page. Dbdb (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'd normally be concerned about semi-protection on a talk page I've looked back through the edits that were removed and there was some major and persistent WP:BLPTALK violations, connected with the subject of this article and a number of other living people. Hopefully, as the heat goes out of the topic we can open it up for reasoned discussion but as it stands it is needed.
 * On the article: WP:UNDUE and WP:DEADLINE apply - at the moment a relatively large section really can't be justified, I'd say that the most that should be there is a couple of sentences on how he was investigated and cleared, as well as the fact that he has denied all rumours and gossip. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper, so we don't work to a deadline and can afford to wait and see how things pan out, so my personal feelings are that we don't really need to add anything at the moment (although that is just my opinon, and a brief mention of the topic wouldn't be an outrageous notion). I'd also raise concerns about some more... pointy recent additions, like the mention of the photograph auction as it is only a rumour and the source isn't online for us to check the wording of the article (if this even exists - Googling the article name only brings up one result, this article, which is a concern given the fact that the Evening Standard is so high profile. Looking around it appears the seller was an institution not an individual, although McAlpine might have been the person who gave the institution some of the photographs that were on sale, although possibly not all of them ). I'd suggest removing that too and then reassess whether it is worth a mention later on. (Emperor (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

Alleged information
Noted this page was protected and watched due to potentially libelous rumors etc. Note that a denial of the allegations/rumors is now in the open and can be sourced see BBC for example. The wording of this denial in the article would need a very experienced editor. . Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now fully protected the article until we have a consensus here that these refuted allegations should or should not be included in the article. Please continue all such discussions here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Of COURSE the allegations should be included. So long as it's made clear there is no substance to them, their existence is frankly a major part of his notability. There are a gazillion reliable sources showing both their existence and his refutation of them. See for example Michael Jackson or Lewis Carrol, two people where unfair sex abuse allegations are a large part of what they are remembered for. Egg   Centri  c  17:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you're entitled to your opinion on the matter, others disagree with you, hence the reason for my protection. Besides, your own entry was littered with speculation and poor referencing (e.g. using the Daily Mail, whatever next, The Sun?!)  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I quite clearly cited The Daily Wail. Egg   Centri  c  18:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue is already under discussion at WP:BLPN, in relation to the article on the North Wales child abuse scandal. It would surely be sensible to continue this discussion there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means. Although discussions of that nature should usually take place at the talk page of the article in question, rather than a noticeboard, but hey ho.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add, as per WP:Libel as long as it is cited and neutrally written there is nothing stopping it being included. Something along the lines of "In November 2012, McAlpine was linked with the North Wales child abuse scandal. He has denied the accusation." might be worth adding. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  18:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm not going to add anything specifically. As discussed above I don't believe we need to rush to add anything yet, but I could support the addition a sentence or two in the personal life section, along the lines of: "McAlpine was investigated by the 1997 Waterhouse inquiry into the North Wales child abuse scandal and was exonerated. His name re-emerged in 2012 in connection with concerns that some abuse at the Bryn Estyn children's home had been overlooked, but Wrexham councillor Keith Gregory has suggested it is a case of mistaken identity and McAlpine released a statement denying any involvement in the case." Best to avoid tabloid newspaper sources, and those two cover all the bases without requiring them. If nothing else adding a mention of it might head off attempts to add large sections on this giving the topic undue weight given the amount of information currently available (especially, if we can reach consensus here about what should and shouldn't be included). (Emperor (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
 * For what it's worth, I think a sentence about the allegation and a sentence about the refutation and subsequent apology from the original accuser per this would be worth including. Nothing more, no need for linking it to anything like Savile, no need for any more than that in my opinion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The main article for the North Wales abuse claims mentions it and I think that helps with the context of a larger article, that isn't needed here as long as we link through to it. (Emperor (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Interesting development. I'd be fine with your suggestions as long as they are carefully worded (and subsequent editors avoid the temptation to expand it, which should be helped by the greater protection you've just implemented on the page). (Emperor (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
 * It ought to be linked to Savile because the North Wales stuff is only getting publicity due to Savile. I'm sure you can find a RS or two to demonstrate that Egg   Centri  c  18:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's your original research. I suggest any edits here are related directly to this article, not to some speculation that McAlpine has been implicated, wrongly or rightly, as a result of the Savile inquiries.  Standard Daily Mail approach.  Not relevant here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Earlier in the day I was resisting anything about the allegations being added to this page. I think now that it's been suggested he might take legal action over them, they could become worth mentioning. Such a paragraph would have to be very carefully worded though; the one proposed enough is a good start. Robofish (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is best to keep keep the wording pared down (I think we can remove the mention of the Wrexham councillor now) and perhaps use ' |quote attribute to flag up the relevant parts of the retraction. (Emperor (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
 * It needs including and definitely shouldn't be more than a couple of sentences. The historical allegation in one sentence. The current one and mistaken identity in another. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be the structure consensus is leaning towards, so a quick reworking of my suggestion above: "McAlpine was investigated by the 1997 Waterhouse inquiry into the North Wales child abuse scandal and was exonerated. His name re-emerged in 2012 in connection with concerns that some abuse at the Bryn Estyn children's home had been overlooked, but McAlpine released a statement denying any connection to the case and the man who had named him admitted he was mistaken." Something like that. (Emperor (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Yep, that's very good. If we can reorganise the citations so they're formatted properly, I'll be happy to move this text to the main article.  Do we need a new section for this?  If so, what title?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As they seem to cover the bases I'll format the references now. And no we don't need a new section - as it seems the story is going no where it'd not be needed for a two sentence paragraph and arriving at a suitable name would be tricky anyway (see, for example Criticism). (Emperor (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC))


 * This is not ideal. The articles do not say he was 'investigated', they say he was a victim of mistaken identity. Those are two very different things. Being a suspect vs having the same name as a suspect. And furthermore, Messham didn't just claim he was mistaken, he claims he was given bad information by the police, who told him a photograph was of someone whom it wasn't of. Decora (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to rework it to a version you feel is more accurate and we can keep kicking it around until we get a version that is acceptable to the majority. (Emperor (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
 * i have some ideas but really i dont think we fully know what happened yet. Messham's story about the police giving him the bad name of the photo is very interesting --- but what is the police side of the story? i just think we should stick to the sources very carefully here. who, what, when, where, why, how. Decora (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

People need to remember WP:NOTNEWS. McAlpine has been the subject of libellous rumours in the last couple of weeks. The original source of the rumour has said that McAlpine is definitely not the person who abused him. People may connect McAlpine's name this month with the rumour. But there is no reason to assume that in ten years time they will do so. There is no need to mention anything in this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree. It may be just two events but they have changed his life forever. One of the reasons he is considering court action is directly related to the effect these new legations have had on his life. It's highly unlikely he'll be a respected figure having had his character tainted like this. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL We cannot assume that these events have done anything to him forever. However giving space to ugly rumours about him in articles that will be consulted over the long term is much more likely to have a deliterious effect than treating this as a nine days wonder that will all be forgotten.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Peter cohen. It isn't news. It was false (albeit unintentionally) and admitted to be so. Any reference would be prejudicial, not only to the neutrality and veracity of the article in the long term, but to any legal action in the pipeline in the short term. Secondly, this sentence and cite: *In May 2003 the London Evening Standard reported that Lord McAlpine was the "well-known and anonymous collector" for whom Bloomsbury Book Auctions was selling a collection of 344 "fashion and eroticism" photographs, including "10 snaps of very young girls in very suggestive poses by Graham Ovenden".[31] * - I've looked at that source and clearly the article has been cited inappropriately to suggest innuendo. In no way does the article cited infer any inappropriate behaviour on the part of the buyer, nor are those exact words used as claimed. Therefore it's an abuse of the citation, highly misleading and should be removed promptly. isfutile:P (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: auction - see my comments above. I think it is there to make a point and the only source I could find suggests that, even if accurately representing the source (which we can't check), it was an institution behind the auction, and though he had donated photographs to them, it is unclear if all the ones on sale were from him or what the content of them was. So, I think we need to remove it asap. (Emperor (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Agree with removing the auction sentence for now. It's badly written given the context of the media frenzy right now and the many false claims in the media and admitted errors by the BBC... the reference doesnt even have an author and there's no place to get it online. it can be easily re-added at a later date if it turns out to be accurate. Decora (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the auction information, we can return to it when everything has died down but the source I found on this suggested the information there wasn't accurate and it probably isn't worthy of mention anyway. (Emperor (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC))


 * The allegations deserve three sentences at best. I have watched with pride as the rumours have been kept of the page in the last week, but as the subject himself has now addressed them I feel they have become part of his biography and should be included. I resented the expansion of a few sentences from his Personal Life into a separate section. It can't be prejudicial to say "He refuted X claimed by X for which X later apologised". Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The allegations at this point must be deleted from talk history, the BBC have this evening made an unreserved and grovelling apology to Lord McAlpine and cancelled all Bureau Of Investigative Journalism co-productions with immediate effect. Twobells (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the best bet would be to kick this upstairs for a definitive decision (for now - we'll need to return to this if there is a series of libel cases) and then scrub the talk page. Although this won't stop the topic from cropping up on here, it is almost impossible to say what we don't need to discuss without touching on it in some way, but as it is out in the public domain now this shouldn't be as difficult as it was before. (Emperor (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC))
 * I'll ask Alison as a matter of urgency, enough's enough. Twobells (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Formatted sources
Here they are:

I've included the quote in the third link as mentioned above, feel free to take it out or leave it. (Emperor (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC))



Addressing the allegations
Now that McAlpine has broken cover - and it's been reported everywhere we need to cover this. My first effort is this:

"The BBC TV news programme Newsnight attempted to name McAlpine as a child abuser, which they subsequently apologised for after the accuser said that this was a case of mistaken identity."

JASpencer (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Having been involved in the discussions earlier today over at WP:BLPN, I think that is too much information. The article on the North Wales child abuse scandal now says (across two paragraphs, at the moment):"'On 2 November 2012... the BBC current affairs programme Newsnight aired an item about the scandal in which one of those who had suffered abuse in the 1980s, Steve Messham, made renewed claims that there had been a much wider circle of abusers, including businessmen, members of the police and senior politicians, extending beyond the immediate area to London and beyond.... [On 6 November] The Guardian reported that references made to a past Cabinet member's involvement may have been the result of confusion over the identities of two members of a family sharing the same surname. A week after the Newsnight programme, on 9 November, the BBC apologised 'unreservedly' for its broadcast, after Steve Messham apologised for making false allegations against a politician.'"  If anyone here wants to comment on that article, or thinks something along those lines is suitable for this article, fine.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can understand not mentioning this when it was restricted to the David Icke forum and Sally Bercow tweets but now we've had a public acknowledgement of the allegations by the subject, widespread media coverage and a retraction by all the main accusers. To pretend that none of this has happened is to make it look like we're trying to hide something. JASpencer (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mentioning it will be preserving the lies about McAlpine. The type of slapdash wordings that have been put forward would have some readers thinking that there might be soem truth in the smears.
 * I suspect that most Wikipedians interested in this discussion are British. They will be subject to British libel laws even though this site is hosted in the US. These laws are quite strict and hold that saying someone is not an xyz can be libelous because it put the suggestion in people's heads. So not including anything is the wisest course of action unless the story runs and runs into next year.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The BBC have just issued a profound and grovelling apology to Lord McAlpine as they have discovered the investigation was seriously flawed, the BBC have with immediate effect suspended all BoIJ co-productions. . I suggest the talk history is rolled back as a matter of utmost urgency to protect this poor man's reputation. Twobells (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The libel suits he is going to bring are going to be of a historic nature, considering the players and the fallout (Twitter, Google, BBC, Bercow, Cameron, ITV), and the fact that the 'twitterati' have likely never been sued quite like this before. Although short term it may seem wise to try to expunge the article and talk page, there is no way, long term, this lawsuit will be 'unmentioned' in the article or the talk pages - it would be like if Irving v Lipstadt were not mentioned in the Lipstadt article nor in the Irving article. Someone somewhere will find it notable (a law student, or a journalist studying old libel cases, or a historian of twitter) and they will add it, eventually, some day. Decora (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I quite concur with Decora. Look at the Max Mosley page for a good example of how to cover a sensationalist story in a sensible way. It isn't hard to steer a path between those that would create a separate article for these allegations and those that would expunge history. There's nothing wrong with mentioning a false allegation that has been mentioned by the subject in a public forum by a reliable broadcaster. We are writing an encyclopaedia here, a historical document, natch. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with Twobells. These are rumors that are false. The news seems to be steering towards blaming the BBC for serious failings, in which case that matter can come under the BBC article mentioning only BBC's part and apology (no need to mention McAlpine). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC Issue Profound Apology
The BBC has issued an urgent and profound apology for a Newsnight report which led to a senior Conservative member of the Thatcher-era government being wrongly implicated in the alleged sexual abuse of children at north Wales care homes. They have also cancelled with immediate effect all BBC/BoIJ co-productions. The BBC have also as a matter of urgency placed a senior executive to oversee all Newsnight programs. Rob Wilson has stated that this 'is without a doubt the BBC's darkest day' while Steve Hewlett stated 'this is a disaster for the BBC' Twobells (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of us might already be aware of this. Do contribute to the above discussion, and stop endlessly repeating the allegation. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely no mention of the BBC apology at the time the section was created and the point was that the BBC were in complete error. Twobells (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true, actually. See previous thread, edits at 22:52 and 23:52 on 9 November.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Opps I missed that, soz. I have edited the lead paragraph to reduce further any damage.Twobells (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Include or not include a reference to the allegations, McAlpine's denial and the BBC apology
RfC question: should the article contain the false allegations of child abuse?

Sorry to start a new section but I'm not at all clear from the above what the consensus is. Perhaps editors could briefly make that clear here.


 * Include There is no longer a risk of defamation and the material should be included per WP:WELLKNOWN:
 * "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
 * Incidentally I'm not sure that the sources do say he was 'exonerated' by the Waterhouse enquiry as in the paragraph for inclusion suggested above. The second (Guardian) suggested source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/08/mistaken-identity-tory-abuse-claim here first uses the term 'exonerated' but then goes on to note that the enquiry actually recorded the evidence as "inconclusive" about any member of the McAlpine family and I would be editing the proposed paragraph accordingly in its present state. I also think, given the nature of the events, that citing BBC News is tantamount to citing a primary source and, in the circumstances, arguably not a reliable source. Let's try and find some other sources. Finally there should surely be some reference to the role of social media in the affair, "trial by Twitter" and so on. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in addition to "Trial by Twitter" given the amount of comment on the various pages here you could also add "Trial by wikipedia" too. Also please leave contact details in case the lawyers need to talk to you about anything you add. John lilburne (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think Wikipedia has been relatively responsible in this affair. Administrators have been prompt in revdeleting defamatory material, of whiche really there was not a lot by comparision to say Twitter or Facebook. Prhaps all these page patrollers I so cordially dislike serve some purpose after all. I agree with the IP I quote that administrators were somewhat naive in imagining, as presumably they must have, that qualified privilege extended to them when they bandied the name of the person involved around so freely, but I have to say that in my opinion Wikipedia comes out of this rather well by comparision with other social media sites. I trust you're not reproaching me personally incidentally. I took some serious time out to make the law clear here before the whole thing became common knowledge and when the issue of defamation was significant. But your remark, John, about contact details is now superfluous because there is no longer any issue of defamation involved.
 * I don't see a consensus to include material here. I had imagined that there would be some clear cut advice about standards and privacy in the Wikipedia corpus which would serve to advise against including it, but I don't see any and I'm somewhat conflicted as to whether any mention should be made or not. My instinct is that it's distasteful to mention it and I shan't be adding it myself.
 * I trust this clarifies your issues. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include. There was an attempt to smear an innocent man by one of the corner pieces of the British Establishment mainly due to his political involvement (and highly likely due to his political affiliation) and the man effectively had no right of reply until recently.  To deny his right of reply here is getting to the point of being scandalous.  I know that most people are doing it for good reasons, but I think that they are misguided.  JASpencer (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "highly likely due to his political affiliation"? That is nonsense. The BBC made a serious mistake by retailing somebody's honest error, for which it and he have now apologised. Political affiliation has nothing whatever to do with it. Let's stick to the matter in hand and stop grinding axes. -- Alarics (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on we all know that the BBC is a political vehicle for the Guardian, who exactly do you think you are kidding? When I was there it had lost it's remit to neutrality but now? terrible state of affairs. Twobells (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No we don't, that is rubbish and you are just pushing your own political POV. Please stop it. -- Alarics (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about Scallywag, David Icke, Sally Bercow, Tom Watson, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and George Monbiot - all of whom have been avowedly hostile to the Conservative Party. With the possible exception of Icke none of them would have treated a Labour .  Although the difference in Newsnight's treatment of McAlpine and Mandelson (on a true and far less damaging allegation) are instructive, Newsnight seemed to have been manipulated into this. JASpencer (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's pointless to discuss something like this in principle, without seeing the precise wording of what is proposed first. We should not republish the allegations themselves here, but there may be a way to make a carefully worded reference to McAlpine's denial and statement, and the BBC's apology.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The parpagraph in the Newsnight article could be a start. JASpencer (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Include These are rumors that are false. They are notable only in that news seems to be steering towards blaming the BBC for serious failings, in which case that matter can come under the BBC article mentioning only BBC's part and apology (no need to mention McAlpine just "false libelous rumors"), or a note on twiter page about libel problems etc. For me the matter has gone beyond McAlpine, its notability is with other articles and there is no need to mention his name. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry to butt in. I have added mentions to the Newsnight and George Entwistle articles. Entwistle's interview with John Humphrys on Today is gaining coverage and this issue is clearly more than just news. I have tried to indicate the rumours are false ahead of the subject. Philip Cross (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not include Disgraceful, I also want the talk history rolled back and deleted. The BBC apologies belongs on the Criticism of the BBC and the BBC Controversy articles. Alison has been notified and we will get an opinion soon. Twobells (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include This is a bizzare situation. We will have discussion of this on Entwhistle, BBC, Newsnight and Wrexham articles all referring to something that cannot be named. We aren't perpetrating or creating these false allegations by responsibly mentioning them and citing them to a reliable source discussing them. We are historians after all, these are important moments for the BBC and media in general, and we owe it to the future to cover this without fear. Look at Max Mosley for responsible discussion of a controversial topic. Future lay readers deserve a neutral discussion of this. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include As long as there is not undue weight given to this, it should be included. We have sources to verify these accusations, thereby satisfying WP:LIBEL. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctantly, Include. I've changed my mind on this, and I think it's too late now to hold to concerns for Lord McAlpine's reputation - the damage has already been done. This has become a notable part of his life. But any addition should be kept brief (perhaps no more than two sentences) and unobtrusive, and make absolutely clear that the allegations were false and have been refuted. Robofish (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Include. Now the story has broken there are no legal reasons no to report the events which are notable in themselves. Wikipedia editors self censoring to protect McAlpine's reputation would be absurd. Just take care that no legal boundaries are breached. Leonig Mig (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, no, no It is a story about Twitter that someone has been maligned. It is a story about the BBC that its jounalistic standards were loose enough to contgribute to the libel. It is a story about Wikipedia that people think it is a good idea to splatter someone's BLP with the lies that have been told about him. It is not a story about the innocent victim of libel that he was targetted by much spreaders and conspiracy theorists. If he actually does spend some years fighting the libels in the way that Mosley did, then it becomes a story about McAlpine. But for now he has not spent a significant part of his life on this and it should not be treated as a significant fact about him.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although i am voting for include, I must say that Peter cohen's comment here is quite eloquent and gave me pause. Anyone who edits this article should consider carefully Peter's words IMHO. Decora (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include - much as I said above, as the subject of the article has now commented in public making global headline news, we would include the facts in a biography. If we focus most of the text on the strong denial, then we shouldn't break BLP or the law. One point re the draft text: these rumours didn't start on Twitter, his name was first mentioned in the (now pulped) Waterhouse enquiry report, and rightfully withheld due to lack of evidence (not surprised, he wasn't involved). So I suggest that the first sentence is modified to "media", which catches all print, television and social media. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong include. The whole affair has been the main news story in the UK for the last couple of days and it's absurd to oppose the idea that it is an important part of his biography. Formerip (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include, but You need to make it clear we do not know that he was a 'suspect', nor do we know that he was 'investigated'. I even think the word "allegation" is rather strong, since the only people who specifically alleged his name in public are conspiracy theorists and a few blog commenters / youtube commenters. If you are going to say 'alleged', then you need to say who alleged it. And to say Meesham alleged it, is also a bit misleading --- Meesham alleged that someone he -had been told was McAlpine- abused him, but he claims now he was told the wrong information. Thats a lot different than saying "it was alleged". Those words "alleged" and "suspect" have strong negative connotations in the US as journalists use them on any suspect up until the point of conviction, even if there's huge amounts of evidence someone is guilty. At this point, In my opinion, it would be more accurate to say what the Guardian said - McAlpine is the victim of mistaken identity. There is a huge amount we dont know, like where the Twitterati got the name from, what happened with the police and Meesham, the role of conspiracy theorists, etc. But the historical significance of the fallout is in dozens of papers now all over the world in multiple languages by now, many public figures have apologized, and the BBC chief resigned. I can compare this to another BBC defamation case, of the Band Aid thing, where wikipedia 'scrubbed' the articles of any mention, but this appears to go way beyond that  Decora (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: McAlpine's brother William has commented on the case here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2231226/Shame-BBC-vile-slur-says-Lord-McAlpines-brother.html#ixzz2BsiSv568 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 November 2012


 * Nope. I was very pleased to discover this article doesn't mention the allegation. We shouldn't be giving oxygen to this kind of thing. If McAlpine takes it further, suing for defamation, etc., then perhaps we can reconsider. But while he is the victim, and while he has done nothing but the bare minimum necessary to refute it, we should treat it as we do all baseless accusations in BLPs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is what I would like to feel, but the fact of the matter is that WP:WELLKNOWN seems to be unequivocal in saying we should inlcude it. The arguments for not inlcuding it seem to me to rest on matters of taste and decorum, possibly privacy, and I can find nothing in the Wikipedia corpus that gives guidance. I do wish an administrator would guide us here. Where is the great Alison, noted BLP specialist, whom an editor here has consulted? How come there's never an administrator around when you need one :)? FrontBottomFracas (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Admins have no more say on the interpretation of policy than you do. Behaviour here is governed by consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. But I'm not asking for interpretation but guidance. The Wikipedia corpus is huge and administrators are much more likely to know what policy actually is. Normally when one reads a biography of an individual one would expect an account of events such as we are discussing here and and it seems to me that WP:WELLKNOWN supports that view. But at the same time a Wikipedia BLP today tends to define an individual, that is just a fact of the age, and it's not at all clear to me that a BLP should include false allegations of crimes, especially of crimes as serious as that involved here. WP:BLP remarks
 * Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
 * This is the only policy statement I can find that references the issues of decorum and privacy I refer to above, and it's plain that in this case that it doesn't apply, that in particular there is no potential for harm since all the facts of the matter are in the public domain, and with the resignation of the Director-General of the BBC announced today the whole business becomes much more notable.
 * Nevertheless I hesitate. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion. There was no truth in it, and it would be unfair to allow it to become a permanent fixture in an encyclopaedia article about him. As Peter says above, the events of the last few days were about Twitter and the BBC, not about McAlpine. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include - I'd think they should be included as whilst they were found to be false, they constitute a significant moment in the blokes public life. They are now very well known and frankly they're the reason 99% of readers are viewing this page (I'm aware there's not a policy about that sort of stuff before anyone says anything). Anyway, Freddie Starr didn't really eat that hamster did he? Coolug (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

outline of a treatment of the allegations
Needs to be an outline of how and what information reached the public domain with a focus on what is factual.

In November 2012 the BBC issued an apology to Lord McAlpine for broadcasting a Newsnight film repeating allegations against a "senior conservative figure" involved in allegations of child abuse at a care home in Wrexham in the 1970s and 1980s. According to a statement issued on behalf of McAlpine, users of the Internet who had watched the broadcast might have "reasonably inferred that the allegation of guilt in those broadcasts and newspapers attached to me". Although the BBC did not name Lord McAlpine in the broadcast, accusations by David Ike and other unsourced blogs and Twitter messages present on the Internet contained suggestions that McAlpine's name was linked to the allegations. In the statement Lord McAlpine denied the allegations in strong terms and stated his desire to investigate libel action against those involved.

Other angles:
 * The allegations seem to have entered the public domain via Scallywag (magazine)?
 * Reopening of interest in child abuse in care homes in the UK in the aftermath of Saville.
 * Steven Messam and the case of mistaken identity - the Guardian mention another McAlpine - "Posh cars and Gold watches"
 * Phillip Schofield and ITV - David Cameron.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonig Mig (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 November 2012‎


 * NOTE: we now have an article on Alfred James "Jimmie" McAlpine, in which I have not presently mentioned any of the allegations. A quick check also shows that the article on former MP for Chester Peter Morrison skirts the issue of the McAlpine "conection". Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Downgrading the protection level
Can we remove the protection on the talk page as events have moved on considerably? I don't think there's much that anon IPs will put on that is worse than what's been peddled (and denied) by the media.

We should also look at moving the main page to semi-protect tomorrow as it seems we're close to a concensus on how we include this.

JASpencer (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK the BBC director general has resigned over this and keeping any mention off the main page is totally unfeasible, we should move the page to semi-protect now and let established editors edit. JASpencer (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the main page"? This?  Don't panic!!!!!   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, article page. JASpencer (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm the admin who changed the protection to full a couple of days ago. I haven't had a chance to follow all the discussions above, but if another admin thinks it suitable to reduce to semi-protected, that's just fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the suggested edit you endorsed
 * "McAlpine was investigated by the 1997 Waterhouse inquiry into the North Wales child abuse scandal and was exonerated. His name re-emerged in 2012 in connection with concerns that some abuse at the Bryn Estyn children's home had been overlooked, but McAlpine released a statement denying any connection to the case and the man who had named him admitted he was mistaken."
 * and said you would be happen to move into the article was in fact extremely poor on several counts amongst which 1 it's not clear that he and others were properly investigated still less exonerated (this is precisely why a fresh enquiry has been called for) 2 the concerns were about abuse committed outside the home, possibly the greater part of the abuse and not some, and apparently not in the remit of the Waterhouse enquiry 3 the BBC involvement is not included 4 neither is the role of social media such as Twitter and crucially 5 "the man involved" was not mistaken but was rather misled. I can add two of the citations are from the BBC, essentially primary sources in the circumstances and arguably not reliable (whatever next - The Daily Mail?).


 * Really I would be obliged if you would release this into the hands of editors who indeed do follow all the discussions. Thank you. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FrontBottomFracas, as "if another admin thinks it suitable to reduce to semi-protected, that's just fine by me" is an explicit release of the issue of protection into the hands of others, and as The Rambling Man's comment was made a couple of days ago and the situation has moved on somewhat, both in terms of events in the real world and discussions about the issues and how to cover them on Wikipedia, your comment is inaccurate and unfair. BencherliteTalk 10:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FrontBottomFracas, per Bencherlite, I'm happy for any admin to downgrade the protection. You may not have any issues in your real life, but sometimes others do, and they can be more important than editing Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Bencherlite. I might be guilty of a misapprehension in supposing the remark about protection was about the article and not this Talk page, and if so I apologise. Neverthless Rambling Man did change the protection level of the aticle to "full" (or so I believe, at any rate I can't edit on my account) a couple of days ago. Please, there's nothing inaccurate or unfair about my remarks concerning the quality of the suggested edit and they might have been made just as validly at the time of the suggested edit. I can add 5 is especially cogent. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen, I protected the page because it was obvious even long-term registered editors were unclear as to the way ahead, and edit warring was getting us nowhere. The text I agreed to seemed fine to me at the time, I am an admin but I'm also an editor, I'm sure you'll agree that none of us are perfect.  But nevertheless I did not include it and then real life issues took over.  The article was still safe from edit warring and inaccurate additions at this time.  I have since suggested that, if appropriate, the level of protection can be reduced by an admin who is fully up to speed on the whole debate.  I don't spend my life looking into child sex abuse claims, perhaps you do and can offer more "cogent" advice to other admins who would be happy to assist you in this article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't spend my life looking into child sex abuse claims. Since opening this account a few weeks ago I have (from memory) contributed edits to the Featured Article of the Day, Christopher Tappin, Suicide of Amanda Todd, Pussy Riot, Tracy Chapman's Talkin' 'bout a Revolution, North Wales child abuse scandal and Emel Mathlouthi. I spend most of my life immersed in the vagaries of EU law. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, like I said, the article has been protected, nothing defamatory has been added, if another admin wishes to semi-protect, that seems just fine to me. My job was to protect the article and Wikipedia, which I did.  Any comment on my comments about suggested additions which weren't subsequently added are pointless and a waste of time.  Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's really good that we've got some acknowledgement of the affair - particularly the false nature of the accusation - on the article page. I'm not too worried about having this off protection now (it was looking a bit dated) although I do think that on balance it would be a good idea to remove full protection as semi-protection should put off the hard core conspiracy theorists.

JASpencer (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there's much less chance of people adding bad content on this topic now we've got our paragraph. Dropping to semi seems plausible.     Morwen (Talk) 11:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I support a reduction to semi-protection. The article needs a lot of basic tidying up, without adding new material.  It looks a bit of a mess at present, and I'm sure a lot of eyes are looking at it and are not over-impressed with it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduced to semi-protection. BencherliteTalk 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What about this?
Not sure how to say the politician defamed here was McAlpine. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be the sort of thing. But note that McAlpine was not a Cabinet minister and Messham didn't make any allegation about McAlpine. Regarding McAlpine's defamation I suggest you simply say something along the lines of " ... was the subject of intensense speculation on social media sites such as Twitter, eventually obliging McAlpine to release a statement describing the speculation as "wholly false and seriously defamatory"". That kind of thing.


 * I would be happy to make an informed and literate edit here if there are difficulties, but I've given generously of my time and I'm not prepared to hang around for ever :). I'll look in again this evening and if it's still ptotected I'll be off to find some issues I can do something about in my tedious dull real life. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just change the above to what you think would be appropriate, and we'll see what others have to say? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm prepared to make (contribute to) an edit in the article given that there is limited consensus here something should be included, but I'm not as brave as you to actually suggest an edit here :). Look what Rambling Nan did to me for heaven's sake ... FrontBottomFracas (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's "Man". And what did I "do to you"? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the issue is reported in a variety of other articles - BBC, Criticism of the BBC, Newsnight, North Wales child abuse scandal, off the top of my head - there may well be others, all of which have different wordings and references. What this article needs to address is simply what McAlpine said - and what happened afterwards - rather than reporting the rumours themselves. So, something like:"In November 2012, McAlpine issued a statement strongly denying unsubstantiated rumours that he was the senior Conservative politician to whom reference had been made in a BBC Newsnight programme on the North Wales child abuse scandal. The BBC, and the former children's home resident whose claims had been reported, both apologised, and later the Director-General of the BBC, George Entwistle, resigned as a consequence." I haven't done all the references for that, but something along those lines is what I would support. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think a reference merely to "unsubstantiated rumours" will do. If we are going to mention this at all, surely we need to spell out that the rumours were not merely unsubtantiated but completely and utterly untrue, and had been based on mistaken identity, i.e. it was a completely different McAlpine who was in the frame. That other McAlpine died in 1991, as the complainant had earlier conceded (see today's Observer at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/10/newsnight-mcalpine-scoop-rumour ). -- Alarics (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We should include that the allegation was completely retracted. The accuser said something like "it certainly was not him". We need to avoid creating the suspicion that it is just a case of reasonable doubt. Formerip (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Ghmyrtle's 11:48 formulation. We can no more say the rumours were untrue than say they were true, Alarics. All we can say is they are unsubstantiated. I believe Ghmyrtle's language is very clear on the strength of the charges and their refutation, FormerIP, but if you think you can improve on that, I'd like to hear your suggestion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm persuaded by FormerIP and Ghmyrtle on this. It has been emphatically refuted, he has been proven to be innocent of the charge, and we should make that clear. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first item currently listed at the BBC's on-line news page reads "The BBC's director general George Entwistle has resigned over a chain of events culminating in a report on child abuse going out on Newsnight which led to Conservative peer Lord McAlpine being mistakenly implicated". That seems clear enough. Maproom (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just listening to Radio 4 now. There are hours of radio time being dedicated to these false allegations. It seems ridiculous that this is not included in the wikipedia article. All that needs to be said as what the evidence was and that it is a completely false accusation. The BBC have said this is completely false so they must have had legal clearance to say this,--Caparn (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ok what about this?

Here is the refs section

i would redo the refs a little for the article, but did it like this here for clarity of discussion. Decora (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did all this "social media mob attack" and "Twitter mob" come from? We can't use phrases like that - pure original research, highly unencylopaedic wording, and we really don't need to say "apologised" four times in one sentence.  We should simply publish the facts, not commentary on them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The allegations based on mistaken identity long predate Twitter. They began as a result of the Waterhouse inquiry's decision in 1997-8 not to name names. They were put into the public domain by the long-defunct Scallywag magazine, which got a lot of things wrong. It is mostly the Scallywag stuff that still floats around the internet on various crackpot conspiracy-theory blogs, and it appears to be from those that Newsnight and Philip Schofield and Sally Bercow and George Monbiot, all of whom should have known better, got the completely incorrect "facts". I urge people to read in full today's Observer piece by David Leigh at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/10/newsnight-mcalpine-scoop-rumour on what happened in 1997-1998 before commenting any further.
 * Yes but without Twitter, none of this would be news. ITV Morning Show would never have taken David Icke's book and showed it to David Cameron, but they did take a bunch of internet blogs/tweets and show it to David Cameron. And cameron wouldn't have said "Trial by Twitter". Furthermore, none of the mainstream articles I can find have mentioned Scallywag or Icke - perhaps we don't actually know where Bercow and Monbiot got the name from in the first place? It appears that many twitterers linked to these two sources, (and the scallywag link is problematic, because its linking to an anonymous blog that in turn claims to have pasted information from scallywag), but is it not possible there were other sources for the twitter trend, the internet frenzy, the 'jigsaw identification' as they are calling it? Decora (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I say again, we must not talk about "unsubstantiated rumours" or "unsubstantiated allegations". That would suggest they might be true, just that the proof is not there. They are in fact completely false allegations, as the Observer article makes clear, based on mistaken identity. -- Alarics (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How about:"In November 2012, McAlpine issued a statement strongly denying that he was the senior Conservative politician to whom reference had been made in a BBC Newsnight programme on the North Wales child abuse scandal. The former children's home resident, whose claims had been reported, withdrew his false allegations and apologised for his mistake. The Director-General of the BBC, George Entwistle, apologised for the broadcast, and later resigned."Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That implies there's some other senior Conservative politician that Newsnight had actually meant, which is not to my knowledge the case. If we're to have something along these lines, which I'm still not entirely convinced about (although now that this has claimed the scalp of the DG we can hardly scrub all allusions to it from Wikipedia entirely), we should start with "In November 2012, McAlpine was mistakenly", making it absolutely clear from the very beginning that these accusations were made in error.   Morwen (Talk) 19:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When someone reads "so and so issued a statement denying the charges" they still have the thought that the charges might be true. But thats not what we have in this case. We have much more detail about what happened. Without the internet, none of this would have happened. ITV would not have made its Morning Show "ambush" of David Cameron with a list from the internet and Cameron wouldn't have replied about 'witch hunts' and 'trial by twitter'. McAlpine's statement specifically mentions the internet. The Guardian piece that first debunked the whole thing, and also coincidentally was the first mainstream article to link McAlpine's name to the BBC "unnamed" newsnight story, talks about the internet. The Leigh article at Guardian / Observer that everyone is talking about, specifically mentioned Twitter, Bercow, and Monbiot. When you make it clear in the writing that there were a bunch of internet rumorists attacking McAlpine's reputation with no evidence, then it is much clearer to the reader the specifics of what happened - its not simply another "public figure denies charges" story - because its not. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100188747/david-cameron-phillip-schofield-and-mob-justice-in-the-age-of-the-internet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 November 2012‎
 * Agree with Morwen. The paragraph should not begin with a denial but with the established fact that he was erroneously identified. ' Ankh '. Morpork  19:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to add further complication, but it has to mentioned that there is more that one living person whose reputation is a stake here. It is not clear that "withdrew his false allegations" is fair. AFAIK, Messham never actually made a public allegation against McAlpine and hasn't explicitly acknowledged that he did so privately or that he had made any mistake. It's also not clear that, assuming he did make an allegation to Newsnight, that he lied, which is what "false allegations" would seem to imply. Perhaps we could substitute something like "expressly denied that he had been abused by McApline and issued an apology to him", which would be sticking more closely to the unvarnished available facts. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * +1. I think Formerip is quite correct. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Ghmyrtle's suggested edits are good. I would be inclined to start a subsection headed something like "2012 Newsnight allegation", to redlink abuse victim Steve Nessham, to avoid saying he made an allegation (that was Newsnight making an allegation of Historic sexual abuse - suggest you redlink that too, article needed), to indicate that although Newsnight did not identify McAlpine their reseachers The Bureau of Investigative Journalism earlier released a tweet sparking intense speculation on social media sites such as Twitter
 *  
 * (bollocks to strictures about The Daily Mail not being an RS - it has a distinguished record of investigative journalism, including notably the Lawrence case, and I would cite this as well). For citations I suggest you include Guardian mistaken identity and McAlpine statement as well as New York Times on Entwistle resignation and naturally avoid BBC sources.
 * Last from me here. I don't have time to wait for my Wikipedia betters and wisers to let me into the ring (erm ... @Rambling Nan, that's a metaphor for a boxing ring there, not the other kind). I have briefs to prepare ;). FrontBottomFracas (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been struggling but haven't come up with a concise form of words that meets all of the reasonable caveats above. Anybody want to have a go? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Anthony, I don't think you need to make it concise. Given its notability, a paragraph of (say) some five or six sentences is quite appropiate I think. I also think that almost certainly an article of its own will appear (I'm not sure that shouldn't be happenning already) and when that happens you can return and replace it with a couple of brief sentences of the (top of head) "McAlpine was implicated in the 2012 Newsnight historic abuse allegation affair, in which he was seriously defamed. The BBC aplogised and its Director-General resigned over the affair." + (no doubt) "Later McAlpine sued the BBC's ass clear off its dick." :) sort thing. Good luck. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"In November 2012, McAlpine was mistakenly implicated in the North Wales child abuse scandal, when a Newsnight report accused an unnamed "senior Conservative" of abuse. McAlpine was widely rumoured on twitter and other social media as being the person in question.  A week later, on November 9, Steve Messham, withdrew his accusation, claiming that as soon as he saw photograph of McAlpine he realised that it was a case of mistaken identity.  The BBC's decision to broadcast the report, without contacting McAlpine first, led to further criticism of the BBC, and the resignation of its Director-General.
 * So, how about
 * Morwen (Talk) 11:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Morwen (Talk) 11:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to mention that McAlpine made his statement, and there's no real need to mention Messham by name (but if we do, we need to explain who he is). I doubt if Messham is or will be individually notable.  How about:"In November 2012, McAlpine was mistakenly implicated in the North Wales child abuse scandal, after the BBC Newsnight programme accused an unnamed 'senior Conservative' of abuse. McAlpine was widely rumoured on twitter and other social media as being the person in question.  After The Guardian reported a possible case of mistaken identity, McAlpine issued a strong denial that he was in any way implicated.  The accuser, a former care home resident, unreservedly apologised, stating that as soon as he saw a photograph of McAlpine he realised that he had been mistaken.  The BBC also apologised.  The decision to broadcast the Newsnight report, without contacting McAlpine first, led to further criticism of the BBC, and the resignation of its Director-General, George Entwistle."Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I would be very satisfied with that. -- Alarics (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * +1. I would replace the second "implicatated" with "involved" and I add would also ", complaining he had been severely defamed". Also qualify "current affairs program Newsnight" perhaps? Very good edit. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, how about:"In November 2012, McAlpine was mistakenly implicated in the North Wales child abuse scandal, after the BBC Newsnight programme accused an unnamed 'senior Conservative' of abuse. McAlpine was widely rumoured on twitter and other social media as being the person in question. After The Guardian reported a possible case of mistaken identity, McAlpine issued a strong denial that he was in any way involved, and stated that the allegations were wholly false and seriously defamatory.  The accuser, a former care home resident, unreservedly apologised, stating that as soon as he saw a photograph of McAlpine he realised that he had been mistaken.  The BBC also apologised.  The decision to broadcast the Newsnight report, without contacting McAlpine first, led to further criticism of the BBC, and the resignation of its Director-General, George Entwistle."  I'm unsure where it should go.  Is it suitable for the "Politics" section, or should it go under "Personal life"?  A new section would seem to me to give it undue weight.  Also, should we link directly to the text of his statement? - here.  Thoughts?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be worth including the full-text as well as some reliable sources putting it in context, especially as it isn't possible for us to do more than mention that he has made the statement denying the allegations. (Emperor (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Oh and on the suggested tex: it is getting there and I'm sure if we put anything on the article, it'll be a form of this. However, the wording is critical. The comma after the first link implies he was mistakenly implicated by the Newsnight report, when it was more a combination of Newsnight and social media, as no one place brought the abuse and his name together until later. So the first two sentences might be simply: "McAlpine was mistakenly implicated in the North Wales child abuse scandal. A report from the BBC current affairs programme Newsnight, broadcast on 2 November 2012, claimed that "a prominent Thatcher-era Tory figure" had been involved and it was widely rumoured on Twitter and other social media that Lord McAlpine was the person in question." It should also be possible to combine the bit about the BBC apologising with the Entwistle resigning. We'd probably also want to use direct quotes for McAlpine's statement and Messham's retraction, just so we don't get accused of putting words in people's mouths. As mentioned below I think it is important to include that this is a joint Newsnight and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigation. It is also important that a "McAlpine" was named to the Waterhouse Inquiry in the 1990s and that the press wrongly thought this was Lord Alpine, even though the accusations were dismissed by the inquiry. This could go as a second sentence before the mention of the Newsnight report, which is just Messham's accusations resurfacing again, but the wording is going to be tricky and it might be we'll want to leave that out for now, as I'm sure there will be more reports on exactly what was said and what the result of it was (the Guardian piece that first mentions is a little tricky to interpret, as there are two statements which might read in slightly different ways, although the Observer piece is clearer). After all there is no rush to get everything in, if the consensus is to include something. (Emperor (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC))


 * I'd try and avoid paragraphs starting with "In" (or "On") as too many biographies can devolve into a list on "Ins", so perhaps:




 * Sprinkle in some quotes from reliable sources to avoid problems of getting the wording right on sensitive issues, we can also make use of the template's quote attribute to add larger chunks of text to provide context (and the links help provide the wider context). I think we can leave the threats of legal action out until it goes to the courts. Anyway kick it around and see what comes of it. (Emperor (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC))
 * My view is that using quotes is fine, but... The chronology's wrong in that McAlpine's statement came days before the This Morning incident, which is really quite irrelevant to this article anyway.  Again, I don't think there's any need to name Messham or suggest that he should have his own article - we could use terms like "the former care home resident who was quoted..."   There are also a few typos that need correcting ("programme", "Entwistle", punctuation, etc.). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like this version at all. We absolutely need to be clear, in the first sentence, that the allegations were wrong, rather than leaving it hanging for nearly a paragraph like this version does.  This is why I suggested my wording, which I think Ghmyrtle has perfected.  The This Morning thing is a distraction, and we should indeed get rid of Messham's name.  The claim regarding the Waterhouse Inquiry is not backed by the source, as the Inquiry doesn't even appear to have considered that it was this McAlpine.  There was nothing to exonerate.   Morwen (Talk) 17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the Waterhouse Inquiry, from that source: "Lord McAlpine was exonerated by the 1997 Waterhouse inquiry of any involvement in the abuse of children in the north Wales homes." Also mentioned in the Observer piece (an excellent source for all this): "Not only was it a fairly straightforward case of mistaken identity, but this fact had been known about by journalists for more than 15 years. Messham's claims, however well-intentioned, had been examined and rejected by the official Waterhouse inquiry in 1997." I'd even suggest starting the paragraph with something on that, as he had already been cleared long before the Newsnight report.
 * It is worth working in This Morning somewhere as they are first on the list of people McAlpine has said he'd sue.
 * Another thing worth working in there is the fact that the Newsnight piece was made with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, important because its managing editor, Iain Overton seems to have started the problems because of comments on Twitter. I see he has now had to resign too . (Emperor (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC))
 * The Guardian article does contain that wording, but then later notes that Messham refused to name the particular McAlpine, so I'd rather be as cautious as possible. If we're putting in the "exonerated" we need to have the context for that: he was never named either by Messham or the report.  And then Iain Overton thing is yes, important, but let's be careful with WP:UNDUE.  All in all, if we're to have it, I'd prefer to keep this paragraph as brief as possible while still setting out the essential facts - all this political fallout belongs somewhere else, not in this chap's bio.  Morwen (Talk) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the wording for a sentence on the Waterhouse Inquiry is going to be tricky, it might be there are earlier sources for this, especially if, as The Observer says, "There was a flurry of journalistic interest in 1998 in the possibility that the Tory treasurer was being referred to. Lord McAlpine was temporarily so hounded by the press and was forced to move to New York for a while. But it rapidly became clear that the whole thing was a mistake." In fact, The Observer's coverage is more... consistent perhaps a better angle of attack would be to say that a McAlpine was named as a abuser to the Waterhouse Inquiry, which led to press speculation that it was Lord McAlpine but that the claims were dismissed by the inquiry. It is, after all, this evidence that re-emerged in the Newsnight report, despite the fact that some checking would have demonstrated how shaky this all was.
 * Agreed on the need for brevity, I'd only really suggest adding in a note that it was a Newsnight investigation in conjunction with the BoIJ, and let other articles provide the wider context - mentions of Overton's role on Twitter are better dealt with on his own article and perhaps in a discussion of how the story developed on the North Wales abuse article. (Emperor (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC))
 * IMO, the proposed version above by Ghmyrtle is good enough. It is a fair representation of the key points, which is the main thing we need. I don't think we need to talk about specific things like This Morning and George Monbiot - that's for articles more specifically dedicated to the saga which, with a tweak, we can wikilink to. Formerip (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I liked Emperor's version as well, but I agree that Morwen's observations have real point. I'm bailing out here as I can see it's in safe hands. Perhaps The Rambling Man was right to fully protect this article. I don't really see why semi-prtotection wasn't adequate. At any rate Lord McAlpine can't complain that Wikipedia editors are gratuitously defaming him, or if we are we are certainly engaged in very carefully considered defamation :). I would just stick it in "Personal life" myself. As I say I thinks it's likely that these events will eventually get an article of their own and we can then reduce the whole thing to a couple of sentences as I suggested. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I support Ghmyrtle's most recent version and agree with FormerIP that details such as This Morning and Monbiot are superfluous to this article, though they belong in a more thorough treatment elsewhere that we may link to. And I agree with FrontBottomFracas that it would fit comfortably enough at the bottom of "Personal life" --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll suggest an admin adds it. If there are more or better refs to be added, fine, but I think the ones I've included cover all the angles.  By the way, why is there no padlock symbol at the head of the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the discussion above and support for this wording, admins are requested to add the following to the end of the "Personal life" section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Done by The Rambling Man. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Relation to construction McAlpines
I believe taht he is one of the descendents of Sir_Robert_McAlpine,_1st_Baronet - see for example http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mcalpines-in-bitter-dispute-over-rivals-use-of-family-name-577563.html. Does anyone have a good source for the family relations ? -- Beardo (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Relation to construction McAlpines
I believe taht he is one of the descendents of Sir_Robert_McAlpine,_1st_Baronet - see for example http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mcalpines-in-bitter-dispute-over-rivals-use-of-family-name-577563.html. Does anyone have a good source for the family relations ? -- Beardo (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, they are all over the place. specifically the UK Guardian published an article discussing it. His interview with ABC australia he talks about working for the family business, calling it "our" business. There are many many other examples. The 'peerage' type of websites that go into huge detail about lords & barons also have genaeologies. etc ect etc. Decora (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

blpsources
Is there anything specific that we still require this tag for? This is now one of our better-sourced and cited biographical articles. Morwen (Talk) 13:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed it. Formerip (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't reconcile with his official bio here. The first link would appear to be simply in error in suggesting he had no experience in arts - his official bio tells a completely different story - where he'd been doing lots of art administration in the 1970s. Perhaps we could try to find actual contemporary news accounts and source those as well, rather than simply relying on a much later second-hand retelling of events? Morwen (Talk) 19:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see those two things as necessarily hard to reconcile. Although the precise details of the Guardian piece are contradicted by the bio, I would guess that the fact of an "immediate protest" is probably still reliable. Formerip (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting link Sir Roy Shaw from the Telegraph 3 15 2012, apparently he was a supporter of subsidy Art who wrote a book that contained comments negative on McAlpine. So perhaps the Guardian is not in error, but it would be nice to know who exactly was protesting at the time and where / if they were quoted. But more than that, it shows the article as it stands is missing quite a lot of detail about McAlpine's Arts history. Check out, for example, this huge exhibit of modern sculpture at the Tate Gallery way back in 1971 - they called the thing the "Alistair McAlpine Gift". A fascinating google search shows the depth: try 'site:tate.org.uk "alistair mcalpine"' Decora (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

New BBC interview
A new BBC interview with McAlpine has been reported here, in which he speaks of his anger and shock at the false claims. I will add it as an external link. If people think elements should be included in the text, perhaps we should discuss it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what the interview shows is that the wiki text as it stands is too long and too vague. For example the language "possible mistaken identity" should be made simply "mistaken identity". It should be made more clear that this was a series of assaults on a completely innocent person that resulted in great emotional turmoil and upset for him and his family. I think a lot of the missing details (ITV's ambush of Cameron, Scallywag, the latter of which McAlpine has now discussed) could go into another article, like maybe the Wrexham scandal article. Decora (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out there are many interviews with McAlpine all over the web, and just pointing to this one in the External Links section is a bit discontiguous. For example, when he went back to Broome Australia in 2012 he was interviewed by several media groups, and several of these put the interviews online. I have linked to some of these in the Australia section. Again it seems off to have this be the only 'external link'. Decora (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that is that a sentence or two should be incorporated in the article rather than relying on an external link, but I was waiting to see if that approach was supported. This incident with the BBC is clearly notable - indeed, highly newsworthy in the UK at the moment - but I don't see a good case for it being spun off into a separate article.  I may draft some new text in the next day or two.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Re the reference to "possible" mistaken identity, I agree that The Guardian was more definite than that, so I've tweaked the wording and added a citation to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i have avoided editing this section of the article myself, but i would note that his interview is not only about him stating anger and shock, but stating compassion for Messham, and his desire to move past the anger, and the support he gets from family, friends, his wife, etc. others have noted this in blogs/newspapers as well. on the other hand people will argue this section of the article is already too big, perhaps implying that the size of the paragraph gives an umbalanced emphasis to the whole issue (which is why apparently some people (me) think moving some of the details to another article is worth considering) Decora (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Scottish vs British vs English vs
The first line on this page reads that McAlpine is a "Scottish" retired politician, a fact I feel is wrong. I cannot for the life of me work out how to go about requesting a change (or even changing it) so I am posting here in the hope somebody else is more successful than me! The article clearly states he was born in London, and also quite clearly states he worked for Margaret Thatcher, in the Conservative Party. Neither are Scottish, nor based in Scotland. Furthermore his baronetcy is based in Hampshire, also a far cry from Scotland. 94.2.207.171 (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * to edit wikipedia you click 'edit' and then you change the text. he has clearly stated in interviews that he considers himself Scottish. although it is confusing i must agree. Decora (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The change from British to Scottish was made in this edit on 4 November, without any explanation. The source provided at the end of the sentence doesn't describe him as Scottish.  He was clearly born in England, of a family of Scottish heritage.  This essay - widely used in matters like this - suggests that people born in the UK should be described as British - a matter of legal nationality - unless they have clearly indicated that they identify with one or other of the constituent countries (such as, for example, playing in a national sports team).  Having looked through a few (not all) of the sources for this article, I haven't seen any in which he describes himself as Scottish.  Do such sources exist?  If not, he should be described as British.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with that reasoning and, since it was done without discussion I'm going to go ahead and revert. Formerip (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The interview is right here, on ABC Australia radio. the first thing he says in the interview is that he is a Scottsman although people call him English. http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2012/03/22/3461304.htm, You can also find it in other interviews. I neglected to add the reference, during the edit, so my mistake. But i do agree its confusing especially to us ignorant Americans who do not understand the UK system.  Decora (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so... is it true that British includes Scottish? But i did have an interview where he corrected someone for calling him British, preferring Scottish, but it was on youtube, and the video was taken down after it was filled with predictably youtube-like comments recently. So i guess i dont have a reference for that. Decora (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What he says in the interview is "People call me an Englishman, I'm actually a Scotsman...." His legal nationality is British, as Scotland is not a fully sovereign state.  I'd prefer defining him as British in the article as it is unarguably correct - defining him as "Scottish" is not precisely what he said, and - given that he was born in England, not Scotland - is undeniably confusing to many readers.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And not only that, the "territorial designation" of his noble title in the House of Lords is a place in the County of Southampton, or Hampshire, in England, rather than a place in Scotland. -- KC9TV 09:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Twitter
And I've re-added the Twitter text, as there doesn't seem to be controversy around that. JASpencer (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you gave for the Twitter comments didn't work for me - it was flagged up as a dangerous site. Anyway, there is a better Guardian source that I've now added, which is also more up to date and refers only to "high profile" tweeters.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian Works for me. JASpencer (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert by JSpencer of my 2012 historic sex abuse edit
I took about an hour out this morning to make a copy edit of the existing section on the historic sex abuse allegations incorporating what was discussed earlier on this talk page, discussions I contributed extensively too and in fact inaugrated, and not only that but earlier I and a colleague had spent significant time (before Lord McAlpine made his statement) warning editors that they didn't have qualified privilige to mention his name, clearly setting out the relevant law in the UK and how it affected Wikipedia, prescient in the light of Lord McAlpine's determination to pursue all who tweeted or retweeted his name on Twitter and other social media.

Ineveitably my edit was reverted by, I take it, one of the self-appointed watchers of the page. I don't remember JASpencer contributing to any of the discussion.

In the first place my edit was a copy-edit, amongst other things deleting pointless weasel words such as "false" and "mistakenly". It set the allegations in its historical context. It also corrected several significant omissions and errors, amongst them noting that the Newsnight report was in the first place a report on alleged failings of the Waterhouse tribunal and skirting around the minefield of what Steve Messham might or might not have alleged (in law he alleged nothing). Finally it noted that Lord McAlpine is pursuing social media sites, what I don't doubt will become the most siginifcant issue here and the basis of my own interest as it happens.

It was empahatically not an edit hinting at a cover-up as JASpencer suggested.

I don't have the time to compete with watchers reverting edits within minutes or hours as their agendas, prejudices or private convictions lead them. I am restoring the edit in good faith. I will inaugrate a RfC if it is again reverted in such a cavalier fashion by JASpencer, and will return some weeks thence to see how my very carefully considered contribution has fared.

I would ask JASpencer to assume good faith and take his issues here, in particular justifying his remark about "inadvertently alleging a cover-up". FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Errm, did I misread that, or do we have a request to assume good faith in an edit that, referring to other editors, says "as their agendas, prejudices or private convictions lead them"? Oh, I get it, it's a joke. (Surely it must be, mustn't it?) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you think "mistakenly" is a "weasel word". It seem to me on the contrary to be, in this particular case, an absolutely essential word.
 * I also don't think we should be mentioning "members of the McAlpine family" -- as if Lord McAlpine might somehow be vaguely responsible for the alleged acts of people allegedly related to him -- which smells to me a bit like a smear by distant association. The bit about the redacting of names from the Waterhouse report is also unacceptable as you have worded it, making it sound as if we think there has been a cover-up of some sort. -- Alarics (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the material added by FrontBottomFracas was unnecessary, and some was sourced from unreliable sources. I agree with the points made by Alarics.  "Mistakenly" is an essential inclusion - to call them simply "allegations" would lead many readers to infer that there was "no smoke without fire", which is untrue.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I undid this was because I thought that, and I fully accept it was inadvertant, it did read to me as if there was a cover-up of the case. The fact that the allegations were false should be the first sentence of any substantive treatment of this affair, something that was specifically not done.  Many editors wanted to take this out altogether.  I'm sorry that an hour out of your life has been taken up with this edit, but this man was falsely accused of rape.  JASpencer (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Having had a look at the discussion in the archive of the suggested edit (in Talk:Alistair_McAlpine,_Baron_McAlpine_of_West_Green/Archive_1, I'm not sure that the edit I reverted represented an agreed edit in any way. This seems to have reflected FBF's view and FBF's view alone.  His/her concerns are summed up as:
 * 1 it's not clear that he and others were properly investigated still less exonerated (this is precisely why a fresh enquiry has been called for) 2 the concerns were about abuse committed outside the home, possibly the greater part of the abuse and not some, and apparently not in the remit of the Waterhouse enquiry 3 the BBC involvement is not included 4 neither is the role of social media such as Twitter and crucially 5 "the man involved" was not mistaken but was rather misled.
 * The edit that FBF has made seems to have been an attempt tto address these five points, and there seems to have been no consensus for any of these points.
 * To put in points (1) and (2) is a direct breach of WP:BLP as well as libellous, points (3) and (4) seem to have either been addressed already or if FBF thinks they are not then there is no consensus for his/her view and (5) the source currently used does not say that Messham was misled but that he had "wrongly identified" McAlpine. I have changed "mistaken" to "wrongly identified to be closer to the source, but I'm not happy with the other four points (or fully agree with the fifth point).  JASpencer (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One other point, I was particularly disturbed by the change in the title to take out the idea that the allegation is false and that the fact that the allegation was false was removed from the first sentence. Looking at the RFC there certainly was no consensus to make it less clear that the allegations were false. JASpencer (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. -- Alarics (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well clear differences of opinion I'm not prepared to pursue, plainly pointless. All that stuff about words like "false" and "allegations" being necessary is nonsense. There is no risk of defamation here. That the McAlpine family name was implicated in the Waterhouse Tribunal is well known and documented in the Guardian reports from Nick Davies and others about the affair. It is the origin of the whole business and, while the Scallywag libels and conspiracy theory can't be mentioned at the moment (because there are no secondary reliable sources, not because of libel issues - Lord McAlpine referred to them himself in his radio interview), it's simply unencyclopaedic not to include it. Finally the real story here, my own personal interest, is his pursuit of social media, not confined to Twitter. Not to include that really is absurd. JamesBWatson, your remark is in reality itself a cheap attack. My edit was revoked because the revoking editor was of the opinion that it alleged a "cover-up". It was nothing of the sort, just a personal conviction on his part he hasn't justified here. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please get things straight, I said that it could read as if it was implying a cover up, and I fully accept that this is not the impression you wanted to give. I would like to say we should agree to disagree on the "false" and "allegations", but I wou't; we must agree to abide by WP:BLP policy and that's that. The BLP policy has been around for a very long time for a very good reason.  You should not simply confine yourself to the letter of British libel law but also to the BLP policy.  The pursuit of social media certainly is interesting, particularly Twitter and should be included. However I really don't think that you understood why your edit was so worrying on the original allegations and their background.  This is the worry that I have.  JASpencer (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. I'd like to add that a good number of editors have worked on this article and argued over tiny points like single words, in an effort to be accurate and fair, not to be 'weasels'. FrontBottomFracas - Please have 'good faith' in the dozens of pages of discussions linked in the talk page archives, and please have 'good faith' in the dozens of hours the other editors have spent working on this page. "False" is a word pulled directly from a large number of secondary sources and was not included for "weasel" reasons - it was included to distinguish this case as a case of mistaken identity and give the reader a more accurate impression of the facts - one repeated by dozens of secondary sources. Wikipedia has fared well in comparison to the other 'social media sites' in this whole debacle because it has prevented the reproduction of speculative information that later turned out to be redacted as false by the very people who were previously promulgating it. In other words, it may seem 'not encyclopedic' to be cautious about including information, but that caution is what saved Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopedia through this whole debacle. I'd also like to point out that the fact that the article is missing a bunch of stuff about the rest of his life, and this is making it just as 'not encyclopedic' as the omissions about the libel case. Decora (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I share with FBF a preference for an entirely encyclopaedic approach which necessarily would include references to Waterhouse, and I feel also that if we were to conform with a strictly historical approach, the use of the adjective "false" would be unsuitable at this stage as the dust of history is yet to settle on a story which may yet have a long time to run. However, as Wikipedia must operate in the real world, which is a litigious place, there is a need to tread with caution and adopt the assumption that unproven allegations are false, as I have concluded reluctantly in the "Source Reliability" section below. My considered conclusion here also is therefore to side with my foe Alarics and accept his edits of both my own earlier revisions and the revisions of others.Alrewas (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not your "foe". I am just trying to uphold the truth and, incidentally, Wikipedia's own rules on verifiability. I find it a bit alarming that it is only "reluctantly" that you will agree that unproven BLP allegations are to be deemed false, especially in the present instance where it became clear weeks ago that the whole allegation against Lord M was based on mistaken identity, viz. it was another McAlpine (now dead) that the accuser had been referring to all along. In other words the allegations are not merely unproven, they have been completely incorrect from the outset. That is why we can with certainty use, and indeed should use, the adjective "false". -- Alarics (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

On another note, and in keeping with Decora's point about the encyclopaedic approach, something could be included on McAlpine's position in the hours leading up to Margaret Thatcher's decision to resign before the second vote, especially as his role as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher is given prominence in the intro. The sombre meal at which McAlpine and Denis Thatcher discussed Thatcher's predicament is covered possibly in Norman Fowler's autobiography of the Thatcher era.Alrewas (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If not in Fowler's auto, then it was covered in the Daily Mail's coverage of Thatcher's resignation on the morning after. It is certainly well documented.Alrewas (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Carol was possibly present at that meal too. I struggle to recall the details, but it seemed at the time a significant and touching scene in the play. Regarding your point on verifiability, which I have just seen: the problem is that some online are, no doubt foolishly, raising the spectre of witness intimidation. Foolish that may be, but anybody adopting a strictly historical approach would not discount that possibility completely at such an early stage in the story, simply because intimidation of witnesses has been well documented in many other cases. As I have said though, Wikipedia's approach here is undoubtedly a better one. We are dealing not only in a litigious world, but also with human beings who have lives to live and must be presumed innocent in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and McAlpine is one such. School history syllabi traditionally avoided the thirty or so years preceding the sitting of the examination, simply because the dust had not settled and fixed conclusions might not safely be drawn. Wikipedia does not enjoy the luxury of being able to do that, and has therefore established rules for dealing with the discussion of the present, which users must get used to and adhere to regardless of personal preference.Alrewas (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Source reliability
I accept unreservedly Alaric's deletion of my reference to a claim in Scallywag, not wishing to subject myself, Wikipedia or any other party here to litigation. However, I can go only so far as to say that Scallywag is a secondary source. The statement that Scallywag is an unreliable source (by implication less reliable than other media secondary sources cited widely on Wikipedia) is I feel a statement which needs referencing to wider evidence of Scallywag's general unreliability. Clearly it would have been helpful had Scallywag referenced its allegation regarding Strathclyde Police. However, the print media generally does not reference its articles in the manner of an academic publication or Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrewas (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP's own article about Scallywag (magazine), along with its article about its founder the late Simon Regan, might be enough to give one pause, I should have thought. If not, there is the fact that the article in question is now housed at http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/, which one need only glance at briefly to see that it is obviously a repository for conspiracy-theory crackpots and about as far from being a "reliable source" as can be imagined. -- Alarics (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither of the two WP articles which you cite give me undue pause for thought regarding Scallywag's reliability in relation to other media secondary sources. John Major won a lible action against Scallywag, just as wronged parties have won lible actions against our national dailies, none of which are deemed sufficiently unreliable to preclude their citation on Wikipedia. The weight of unreliability over the course of a publication's lifespan is what I feel needs to be quantified. Whilst I agree that truthseeker.org is the type of repository which you describe, it houses information from a wide range of respected publications whose citation at truthseeker.org alone does not call into question their overall credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrewas (talk • contribs) 09:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The source cited and removed has a range of issues, including WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:LIBEL. Wording it as "It has been claimed that..." is also classic WP:WEASEL. So all in all, Hell stages the Winter Olympics before this goes into the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Simon Regan might go some way towards assisting not only the idle enquiring mind but also the wider investigation were he to state, with the benefit of maturity and hindsight (hopefully!), his degree of confidence in his former sources, and whether he has had cause, either at the time of the article's publication or since, to question the validity of what he published. That, though, may sadly be too much to ask of any journalist these days.Alrewas (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since he died 12 years ago, I don't think he is going to be of very much help in that regard. -- Alarics (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC
 * Also, Strathclyde Police did not exist until 1975, so quoting it for something before then leads to doubts straight away.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the point about Scallywag magazine is not merely that it was successfully sued for libel, but that it was clearly a ragbag of scurrilous and scandalous allegations based purely on wild, unsubstantiated rumour. As such it would be an unreliable source in WP terms even for something non-contentious, never mind an article about a living person, for which we have to be far more careful. Note that WP:BLP says of articles about living people, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." -- Alarics (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the passing of Simon Regan and especially for clarifying the formation of Strathclyde Police. The advice against using material whose only source is tabloid journalism is also I feel sound (and perhaps of relevance to other, albeit far less contentious, WP articles, I might add!). I don't feel that the point that Scallywag was sued successfully for libel is of relevance here: it was never sued in relation to the article which has come to prominence in recent days. People have every right to sue Mrs Bercow or anybody else who they believe to have repeated or even alluded to allegations which are false, but the best way of killing such speculation would be to sue the source of those allegations. As both Simon Regan and the author of the article are now dead, it may be too late to do so in this case, hence perhaps the emphasis on suing those who repeat what has been published previously by others and is stored at the British Library. The implications of that for organs such as Wikipedia are complex, and the need for caution is indeed absolute.Alrewas (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lord M did mention Scallywag in his recent BBC radio interview and implied that when the magazine closed down and went bankrupt (because of a completely different libel case) there was no point in trying to pursue the matter further. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20342848 -- Alarics (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Include or not include a reference to the allegations, McAlpine's denial and the BBC apology
RfC question: should the article contain the false allegations of child abuse?

Sorry to start a new section but I'm not at all clear from the above what the consensus is. Perhaps editors could briefly make that clear here.


 * Include There is no longer a risk of defamation and the material should be included per WP:WELLKNOWN:
 * "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
 * Incidentally I'm not sure that the sources do say he was 'exonerated' by the Waterhouse enquiry as in the paragraph for inclusion suggested above. The second (Guardian) suggested source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/08/mistaken-identity-tory-abuse-claim here first uses the term 'exonerated' but then goes on to note that the enquiry actually recorded the evidence as "inconclusive" about any member of the McAlpine family and I would be editing the proposed paragraph accordingly in its present state. I also think, given the nature of the events, that citing BBC News is tantamount to citing a primary source and, in the circumstances, arguably not a reliable source. Let's try and find some other sources. Finally there should surely be some reference to the role of social media in the affair, "trial by Twitter" and so on. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in addition to "Trial by Twitter" given the amount of comment on the various pages here you could also add "Trial by wikipedia" too. Also please leave contact details in case the lawyers need to talk to you about anything you add. John lilburne (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think Wikipedia has been relatively responsible in this affair. Administrators have been prompt in revdeleting defamatory material, of whiche really there was not a lot by comparision to say Twitter or Facebook. Prhaps all these page patrollers I so cordially dislike serve some purpose after all. I agree with the IP I quote that administrators were somewhat naive in imagining, as presumably they must have, that qualified privilege extended to them when they bandied the name of the person involved around so freely, but I have to say that in my opinion Wikipedia comes out of this rather well by comparision with other social media sites. I trust you're not reproaching me personally incidentally. I took some serious time out to make the law clear here before the whole thing became common knowledge and when the issue of defamation was significant. But your remark, John, about contact details is now superfluous because there is no longer any issue of defamation involved.
 * I don't see a consensus to include material here. I had imagined that there would be some clear cut advice about standards and privacy in the Wikipedia corpus which would serve to advise against including it, but I don't see any and I'm somewhat conflicted as to whether any mention should be made or not. My instinct is that it's distasteful to mention it and I shan't be adding it myself.
 * I trust this clarifies your issues. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include. There was an attempt to smear an innocent man by one of the corner pieces of the British Establishment mainly due to his political involvement (and highly likely due to his political affiliation) and the man effectively had no right of reply until recently.  To deny his right of reply here is getting to the point of being scandalous.  I know that most people are doing it for good reasons, but I think that they are misguided.  JASpencer (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "highly likely due to his political affiliation"? That is nonsense. The BBC made a serious mistake by retailing somebody's honest error, for which it and he have now apologised. Political affiliation has nothing whatever to do with it. Let's stick to the matter in hand and stop grinding axes. -- Alarics (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on we all know that the BBC is a political vehicle for the Guardian, who exactly do you think you are kidding? When I was there it had lost it's remit to neutrality but now? terrible state of affairs. Twobells (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No we don't, that is rubbish and you are just pushing your own political POV. Please stop it. -- Alarics (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about Scallywag, David Icke, Sally Bercow, Tom Watson, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and George Monbiot - all of whom have been avowedly hostile to the Conservative Party. With the possible exception of Icke none of them would have treated a Labour .  Although the difference in Newsnight's treatment of McAlpine and Mandelson (on a true and far less damaging allegation) are instructive, Newsnight seemed to have been manipulated into this. JASpencer (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's pointless to discuss something like this in principle, without seeing the precise wording of what is proposed first. We should not republish the allegations themselves here, but there may be a way to make a carefully worded reference to McAlpine's denial and statement, and the BBC's apology.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The parpagraph in the Newsnight article could be a start. JASpencer (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Include These are rumors that are false. They are notable only in that news seems to be steering towards blaming the BBC for serious failings, in which case that matter can come under the BBC article mentioning only BBC's part and apology (no need to mention McAlpine just "false libelous rumors"), or a note on twiter page about libel problems etc. For me the matter has gone beyond McAlpine, its notability is with other articles and there is no need to mention his name. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry to butt in. I have added mentions to the Newsnight and George Entwistle articles. Entwistle's interview with John Humphrys on Today is gaining coverage and this issue is clearly more than just news. I have tried to indicate the rumours are false ahead of the subject. Philip Cross (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not include Disgraceful, I also want the talk history rolled back and deleted. The BBC apologies belongs on the Criticism of the BBC and the BBC Controversy articles. Alison has been notified and we will get an opinion soon. Twobells (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include This is a bizzare situation. We will have discussion of this on Entwhistle, BBC, Newsnight and Wrexham articles all referring to something that cannot be named. We aren't perpetrating or creating these false allegations by responsibly mentioning them and citing them to a reliable source discussing them. We are historians after all, these are important moments for the BBC and media in general, and we owe it to the future to cover this without fear. Look at Max Mosley for responsible discussion of a controversial topic. Future lay readers deserve a neutral discussion of this. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include As long as there is not undue weight given to this, it should be included. We have sources to verify these accusations, thereby satisfying WP:LIBEL. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctantly, Include. I've changed my mind on this, and I think it's too late now to hold to concerns for Lord McAlpine's reputation - the damage has already been done. This has become a notable part of his life. But any addition should be kept brief (perhaps no more than two sentences) and unobtrusive, and make absolutely clear that the allegations were false and have been refuted. Robofish (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Include. Now the story has broken there are no legal reasons no to report the events which are notable in themselves. Wikipedia editors self censoring to protect McAlpine's reputation would be absurd. Just take care that no legal boundaries are breached. Leonig Mig (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, no, no It is a story about Twitter that someone has been maligned. It is a story about the BBC that its jounalistic standards were loose enough to contgribute to the libel. It is a story about Wikipedia that people think it is a good idea to splatter someone's BLP with the lies that have been told about him. It is not a story about the innocent victim of libel that he was targetted by much spreaders and conspiracy theorists. If he actually does spend some years fighting the libels in the way that Mosley did, then it becomes a story about McAlpine. But for now he has not spent a significant part of his life on this and it should not be treated as a significant fact about him.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although i am voting for include, I must say that Peter cohen's comment here is quite eloquent and gave me pause. Anyone who edits this article should consider carefully Peter's words IMHO. Decora (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include - much as I said above, as the subject of the article has now commented in public making global headline news, we would include the facts in a biography. If we focus most of the text on the strong denial, then we shouldn't break BLP or the law. One point re the draft text: these rumours didn't start on Twitter, his name was first mentioned in the (now pulped) Waterhouse enquiry report, and rightfully withheld due to lack of evidence (not surprised, he wasn't involved). So I suggest that the first sentence is modified to "media", which catches all print, television and social media. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong include. The whole affair has been the main news story in the UK for the last couple of days and it's absurd to oppose the idea that it is an important part of his biography. Formerip (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include, but You need to make it clear we do not know that he was a 'suspect', nor do we know that he was 'investigated'. I even think the word "allegation" is rather strong, since the only people who specifically alleged his name in public are conspiracy theorists and a few blog commenters / youtube commenters. If you are going to say 'alleged', then you need to say who alleged it. And to say Meesham alleged it, is also a bit misleading --- Meesham alleged that someone he -had been told was McAlpine- abused him, but he claims now he was told the wrong information. Thats a lot different than saying "it was alleged". Those words "alleged" and "suspect" have strong negative connotations in the US as journalists use them on any suspect up until the point of conviction, even if there's huge amounts of evidence someone is guilty. At this point, In my opinion, it would be more accurate to say what the Guardian said - McAlpine is the victim of mistaken identity. There is a huge amount we dont know, like where the Twitterati got the name from, what happened with the police and Meesham, the role of conspiracy theorists, etc. But the historical significance of the fallout is in dozens of papers now all over the world in multiple languages by now, many public figures have apologized, and the BBC chief resigned. I can compare this to another BBC defamation case, of the Band Aid thing, where wikipedia 'scrubbed' the articles of any mention, but this appears to go way beyond that  Decora (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: McAlpine's brother William has commented on the case here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2231226/Shame-BBC-vile-slur-says-Lord-McAlpines-brother.html#ixzz2BsiSv568 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 November 2012


 * Nope. I was very pleased to discover this article doesn't mention the allegation. We shouldn't be giving oxygen to this kind of thing. If McAlpine takes it further, suing for defamation, etc., then perhaps we can reconsider. But while he is the victim, and while he has done nothing but the bare minimum necessary to refute it, we should treat it as we do all baseless accusations in BLPs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is what I would like to feel, but the fact of the matter is that WP:WELLKNOWN seems to be unequivocal in saying we should inlcude it. The arguments for not inlcuding it seem to me to rest on matters of taste and decorum, possibly privacy, and I can find nothing in the Wikipedia corpus that gives guidance. I do wish an administrator would guide us here. Where is the great Alison, noted BLP specialist, whom an editor here has consulted? How come there's never an administrator around when you need one :)? FrontBottomFracas (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Admins have no more say on the interpretation of policy than you do. Behaviour here is governed by consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. But I'm not asking for interpretation but guidance. The Wikipedia corpus is huge and administrators are much more likely to know what policy actually is. Normally when one reads a biography of an individual one would expect an account of events such as we are discussing here and and it seems to me that WP:WELLKNOWN supports that view. But at the same time a Wikipedia BLP today tends to define an individual, that is just a fact of the age, and it's not at all clear to me that a BLP should include false allegations of crimes, especially of crimes as serious as that involved here. WP:BLP remarks
 * Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
 * This is the only policy statement I can find that references the issues of decorum and privacy I refer to above, and it's plain that in this case that it doesn't apply, that in particular there is no potential for harm since all the facts of the matter are in the public domain, and with the resignation of the Director-General of the BBC announced today the whole business becomes much more notable.
 * Nevertheless I hesitate. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I still favour excluding a mention. The present wording was beaten out here in the archive. It's clear, concise and comprehensive enough... but no mention would be better. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion. There was no truth in it, and it would be unfair to allow it to become a permanent fixture in an encyclopaedia article about him. As Peter says above, the events of the last few days were about Twitter and the BBC, not about McAlpine. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include - I'd think they should be included as whilst they were found to be false, they constitute a significant moment in the blokes public life. They are now very well known and frankly they're the reason 99% of readers are viewing this page (I'm aware there's not a policy about that sort of stuff before anyone says anything). Anyway, Freddie Starr didn't really eat that hamster did he? Coolug (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude In this world there are always some who think "smoke -> fire" and what we would be doing is confirming the "smoke".  Lies are not something Wikipedia should in any way whatsoever promulgate or further. Collect (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The smoke/fire metaphor was actually mentioned by McAlpine in the BBC interview he gave.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Points well taken. But at what point does the failure to mention a famous legal case in someone's biography, in and of itself, become a lie? Decora (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Oppose, Exclude This is Wikipedia at its worst. An innocent man is falsely accused of an atrocious crime. Despite it being completely false, some Wikipedia editors want to have that horrible allegation follow him forever, as "biography". This is what's wrong with Wikipedia! All that needs to happen is for someone to be subjected to a trumped-up sensational charge, whether out of malice or mistake, and a Wikipedia faction will then try to torment the victim endlessly via preserving the mudslinging as a key part of what needs to be known about him or her. It's a completely deranged concept of what it means to write an "encyclopedia", utterly bereft of what's termed "common sense" (which here has a function definition of awareness that statements don't exist in a vacuum, but have contexts and implications) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - while the allegation is false, clearly the fact that McAlpine was embroiled in a major smear unwittingly (albeit possibly incompetently) involving one of the most major media organizations in the world is noteworthy, as can be seen via the major coverage the event caused in news agencies worldwide. Perhaps a better idea is to include this on the BBC page (or on a new page completely) and have it linked to from this page in the "See also" section, with possibly a mention in the article consisting of no more than a sentence along the lines of "In 2012, McAlpine was embroiled in a damaging campaign against him after false accusations were eluded to [ [ BBC#Controversies | by the BBC ] ]." Clearly people looking for information about the incident would seem likely to go to the McAlpine page for information, so there needs to be a link to the relevent information on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be an allegation actually repeated here, which should primarily be about McAlpine in truth. I completely understand the proposer's sentiments, but it'd be difficult not to cover the scandal in Wikipedia altogether. 98.254.202.225 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with your sentiment, however the "See Also" section is generally considered rather prominent on wikipedia, so if you want to avoid playing into the falseness or the "smoke fire" thing, you probably dont want to put it there. I agree with you that the main story as far as McAlpine's biography is concerned is about the pitchfork mob and the witch hunt and 'trial by twitter', and the subsequent lawsuits. unfortunately we still dont have all the facts, chiefly who exactly is responsible for spreading the rumors. but the article as it currently stands is too vague and still leaves too much doubt in the readers mind. i agree the details should be in a separate article, probably the Criticisms of the BBC article (or has someone created a "2012 BBC scandal" article?) . if the thousands of twitterati actually get sued, i think there is a case to be made for creating a wholly separate article about the court case (like we have for the Irving v Lipstadt defamation case). Decora (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include The obvious logic is to include this firstly as a matter of decency as his name is always going to be linked to this on the internet and I'd rather have the curious coming to the Wikipedia page rather than the David Icke forums (which will probably add a conspiracy theory saying that we're keeping this out as a lizard protection thing) and secondly this is now a matter of public record, a major part of his life, etc. JASpencer (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Include Proceeding in the formal way of an ethics discussion, the first question is which fundamental principles apply. The basic ones in terms of the world in general are telling the truth, fairness to other people, and compassion. In  WP terminology, that amounts to the fundamental rules that  WP is an encyclopedia, Not censored, Do no harm,  and Not tabloid. That we are an encyclopedia means that verifiable important events in the life of distinguished people  must be covered.  Do no harm means that we would not cover it unless the matter were so generally public that coverage here would not cause any significant further publicity. Not Tabloid means we do not cover even scandalous events in a life of a private individual where the  interest is in the scandal, not the person, and there is no general implications, with the exception of some crimes where the crime itself or events leading from it is of such importance to the public  that it is a matter of significant coverage by even the most serious reputable sources. Applying these: There are sufficient reliable sources,  even though the subject is a false accusation of crime--a matter for which we would require impeccable sourcing.  Do no harm does not restrict us, for this is a well known public figure ,and the events have already had very great  world-wide publicity.  As has been pointed out above by others, do no harm would also say that we do less harm to him including it here, for the event is so well known that people coming here for information would be so puzzled that we did not include it as to raise questions of deliberate suppression--and what would normally explain suppression is that the matter might be true after all, That is also the meaning of Not censored--omitting this would imply we censor the unpleasant.   With respect to Not tabloid, the material also no longer about his life only; the original reckless reporting of it has led to major repercussions    affect the career of other public figures,  and the general reputation of one of the world's major information sources and public institutions. In answer to objections: That we can not yet do POV writing because  there may yet be further implications not yet reported is true of all public events; when there are, we will include them. It might be argued that WP is an encyclopedia of record, and will preserve these events long after they would be forgotten. But this is contradicted by the public effects--this will be part of the public history of our time. It might be said that not censored in our context refers only to such things as images, but though the emotional impact of images causes us to be more sensitive about them than about texts, we also have applied this principle to such things as psychological tests, film plots, and other textual material--this is especially relevant with respect to events in the UK, which combined with an incredible interested the salacious has a very heavy handed censorship of some kinds of news reporting considered quite respectable elsewhere. As for Not Tabloid, though to some extent I recognize that because the main historic impact of this is on the BBC and by implication the British establishment it should be primarily  covered there, the biography of the person whom it centered around is such an obvious place for people seeking information that no responsible account of his life could fail to cover it. Tabloid refers properly to events of only salacious interest, the desire to obtain entertainment from other people's troubles, especially the troubles of people known for proving entertainment. This is much more than that.  DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude (at least not in this article, and so long as he shall live (is alive)). I am never terribly comfortable with the idea of repeating a libel against a living natural individual person, no matter how indirectly, nuanced or careful that it is done, especially under the named article for that person. This information is instead be better put under the articles for Mrs. Sally Bercow and for Mr. George Monbiot. Wikipedia is ultimately subject to the principle of NOTNEWSPAPER, and unlike a newspaper, not every single thing that gets reported ought to be included into Wikipedia. Furthermore, he is a British person and a British subject resident in the legal jurisdiction of England, and over here in England, the concept of "libel" is admittedly a lot boarder and a lot more "liberal" than the ones known in the City and State of New York, in Florida, in California or in the rest of the United States of America. Until the law in England is changed, he ought to enjoy the same protection as an Englishman would expect from a newspaper in England, and American expectations of " "free" speech" – the irony intended – ought not apply in his case. (Or else we might ultimately expose named and known British Wikipedians to legal suits and actions within the Courts of England, as if they were jointly liable.) -- KC9TV 06:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realise, surely, that if we were to afford him "the same protection as an Englishman would expect from a newspaper in England", then that would mean putting his name on the front page in close proximity to "paedophile", "BBC" and "Jimmy Saville", along with his picture, for an extended period. Formerip (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And which newspaper had actually printed Lord McAlpine's photograph together with Sir Jimmy Savile's (who, being a dead man, is incapable under English or British law of being libelled)? Do tell, my dear chap! You have been hitting the bubbly again, haven't you? -- KC9TV 09:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Include but make sure it's neutral and accurate. How else can anyone turn to Wikipedia to obtain the truth about what has been happening? Poglad (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Include. We can't leave it out altogether. I think the one paragraph on it that we have now is about right. -- Alarics (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

the auction edit
(Previously discussed in the Talk Archive, here)

The article, a few weeks ago, had a section referencing a supposed 2003 article in The Evening Standard about an auction of artworks that McAlpine allegedly selling. However a subsequent in the Sidney Morning Herald indicated he was not the seller. He had collected some of the artworks previously and donated them to the Art Gallery of New South Wales. The SMH article claimed the Gallery was the seller. There is no indication if the items in the auction were identical to those McAlpine donated, so that's my primary question. The auction's name on the collection was "A (Very) Private Collection: Fashion and Eroticism Photographs 1970-1990". I would vote against including the edit, as it was written, back into the article, as it seemed to imply several things that may not be entirely accurate.

Relevant articles:
 * Sidney Morning Herald, 2003
 * Guardian, 2003
 * (Actual list of items at auction)

discussion welcome. Decora (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed it before, because it relied on one source which appeared to get the wrong end of the stick, while more reliable sources were more accurate and the connection is unclear. So, as it stands, I'm still in favour of not including it, but if someone can find a reliable source that has teased out the items that he had donated it might be worth including but we haven't yet found it and I'd imagine most news media will be wary of annoying Lord McAlpine by going digging. (Emperor (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC))

Its an entire subsection now?
There are a lot of details about his life surrounding his art collecting and stewardship of arts committess, not to mention his business activities, that are not in the article yet. And yet, this 2012 libel situation has gotten an entire section now? After all our debate and argument that it shouldn't be that prominent, and that the gory details should be left to another article? What happened? Id also like to point out with a bit of dismay that the Cyril Smith article section on abuse allegations is roughly the same size as the section in this McAlpine article. Surely, it behooves a neutral encyclopedia to provide more details about the case of an admitted abuser, for whom there is solid evidence regarding a number of victims, than the case of someone who was wrongly accused, for whom there is the negation of evidence. Decora (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's still basically that paragraph that we worked on above, but with a section heading, and with new events that have happened since then added, perhaps not as tersely as they could have been.  I'm a little concerned about the size of it growing further, but perhaps we should address that by, as you suggest, expanding the rest of the article instead.  Morwen (Talk) 15:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at editing it for length. Have a look?  Morwen (Talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, new material was added here by User:FrontBottomFracas, who has now become User:JaniB, and some was edited out by other users including myself. I agree that the section should be short and succinct.  The latest version looks fine to me.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I favour leaving that section as it now stands. -- Alarics (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've argued against using a section before, partly because of WP:UNDUE and WP:CSECTION, but also because such things are a pain to name - you end up trying to add qualifiers that it becomes unwieldy and messy. As we are going to keep it trimmed down it should be a simple paragraph inside the "personal life" section. It might be all the legal action against Twitter users will require an article (especially as it seems Sally Bercow is determined to fight it in court, enterprising souls are even selling "Innocent Face" t-shirts) but we can add that in as a link, where we'll cover it in more detail. (Emperor (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC))

New information
Shouldn't the section on the false allegations of child abuse also state that he has now said he does not wish to defame people who tried to accuse him on Twitter, instead he has asked whether they can donate money to Children in Need?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Slight section title issue (re: connotation of "Allegations")
In the interests of avoiding a misrepresentation, I changed the title "Allegations of child abuse" to "False allegations of child abuse". To leave it unmitigated as simple "Allegations" could convey an insinuation (if someone doesn't read the section but quickly sees the title) that there was a substantive accusation. I'd rather not defame a man by such a latent casualness. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in total agreement with you, but it still reads poorly to me. Inserting "True" or "False" before a header seems so inelegant. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To mark the allegations as "false" (or indeed "true") seems strange. We're not here to judge if the allegations were true or false, but instead it is appropriate to note that they were made by various parties and later withdrawn by some of those parties. Remember that WP:BLP does not apply to this article any more, but WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:BDP does. Shritwod (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108071441/http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/lord-knows/159/ to http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/lord-knows/159/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106234220/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/m/1467/(Robert)%20Alistair%20McAlpine+McALPINE%20OF%20WEST%20GREEN.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/m/1467/(Robert)%20Alistair%20McAlpine+McALPINE%20OF%20WEST%20GREEN.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106234220/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/m/1467/(Robert)%20Alistair%20McAlpine+McALPINE%20OF%20WEST%20GREEN.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/m/1467/%28Robert%29%20Alistair%20McAlpine+McALPINE%20OF%20WEST%20GREEN.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)