Talk:Bob Seely

Requested move 5 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert Seely → Bob Seely – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Bob Seely is the name used on his official website and Parliamentary profile. It is also the name overwhelmingly favoured in reliable sources, with practically no coverage for "Robert Seely". AusLondonder (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. No-brainer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Finnegas (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Referencing
Way too much information in this article has been sourced from the MP’s own blog, which is clearly not an NPOV RS, and suggests editing with POV in mind. I have removed the citation and related material, and would ask that future edits confirm with normal WP standards in terms of VERIFIABILITY and NPOV. MapReader (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally significant parts of it are unsourced, which also needs editor attention. MapReader (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing practices - removal of text.
In the most recent edit, the following paragraph has been removed:

“The Bill was considered controversial in media reports, in part due to the perceived restrictions it would place on protests and protestors. Seely was subsequently criticised on social media and in local media coverage reference was made to his support for the Bill in light of his track-record in supporting protests in Hong Kong concerning the Chinese government.”

I believe this to be an inappropriate edit, as it provides context to the relevant section (activities in Parliament).

If absolutely necessary, it is possible to update with an appropriate reference, rather than remove the section in question.

There is documented evidence to support the deleted section, including external references to the criticism of Bob Seely as mentioned. Chausettes (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Revisions made by anonymous user 20.01.22
A revision has been made which removes relevant details (subject’s girlfriend being a local journalist who joined him at a barbecue). I think the change should be reverted, but happy to engage in a discussion about it, or what format it should take if it is re-included. Thoughts please! Chausettes (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I watch this page, and there have been edits in the past that raise concerns about NPOV and neutrality. But I don’t think that removing non-notable information about his girlfriend qualifies as such. MapReader (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that MapReader - I wasn’t sure (hence I didn’t just revert). Chausettes (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspicions user edits
The detail and depth of content on this article is quite in depth compared to equally prominent politicians.

Looking at the edits, it looks like a lot of edits come from a small selection of users with all users showing a lot of the indicators of WP:SOSP. The below account all indicate WP:REPEATING, WP:XS, WP:PREC, WP:IDART, WP:CONNECTION, WP:CHRONOSOCK, WP:OCUSE, WP:BRIEFLY.

I would suggest contributions from the below accounts be treated with extra attention.

user:Janejones123 user:FantaAmazon user:TheOnlyJohnMajor user:JamesIOW user:Peter1 and Paul2 user:Simon.Loader Jo Jc Jo (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have noticed this myself - edits from accounts where this is pretty much (and sometimes precisely) the only article ever edited. Whilst self-editing (which would include by your own staff) is allowed under WP rules, it's clear that articles should be encyclopaedic rather than promotional.  I've made various edits over recent months to remove obviously self-promotional material where it doesn't meet the normal criteria of notability. You can also see that I have raised similar concerns myself before, above. MapReader (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong whiff of that for sure. Not sure how good a job they've made of it though, it seems less successfully "promotional" than just "rambling and wordy".
 * There's a very odd aspect concerning how poorly chronologically structured it is. Or maybe Captain Sir Bob's just had a very weird career.  If we have a suitable source, it'd be good to clarify if he enlisted in the army reserve while already pretty long in the tooth (having previously been a journo, a failed parliamentary candidate, etc), or if he was "activated" from a much earlier enlistment.  If we knew that, we might be able to put it into better shape than the existing jumping backwards and forwards in time.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)