Talk:Brendan Clarke-Smith

Moving this beyond a stub
Requested photo has been added from Wikimedia. Details of his opinions, past political history and home life have also been added. He currently has little media presence (from previous political or occupational career) and no history as an MP. This needs to be added over time. It's important to separate his political career from his opinions, and to report his opinions in a neutral way (even if they are controversial). (I have removed the word 'denied' because it now has a sense that you are not in the consensus if you are a denier, and substituted more neutral language.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.75.9 (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Guardian assessment
I see you removed a sentence about The Guardian's identification of Clarke-Smith as one of the "most controversial" new Tory MPs a while back. I'm a bit puzzled by your rationale: you're right that the claim is, but that isn't a barrier to inclusion (we include subjective opinions in the form of reviews and the like all the time), and you cite WP:NOTNEWS, but that policy warns against writing in the style of newspapers, rather than drawing on them (which, again, we do all the time). This seems to me like something we ought to include on the basis that (1) The Guardian is an unimpeachably reliable source on UK politics, so its opinions carry a fair bit of weight; (2) that Clarke-Smith was one of only six of the 107 new Tory MPs identified in the piece, so it's a relatively unique description; and (3) that, since being elected remains probably the most consequential thing he's done, giving the reader a sense of how he was perceived at the time he was elected is likely to be valuable. I'd be interested to know what you (and others) think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Arms & Hearts. My edit summary also stated that, in my view, it is not hugely important to include in the biography. As per WP:LABEL, "controversial" is a description which should be used with caution on a neutral BLP. There is only one source for the opinion that he is "controversial". If there are multiple reliable sources to state that Clarke-Smith is "controversial" then that would carry more weight (in my view) as justification of the importance of the "controversial" description to include in the biography. The Guardian is indeed a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that everything The Guardian writes or all the opinions of The Guardian necessarily need to be included in the biography. So I question the importance of including this view of one newspaper. By including WP:NOTNEWS in the edit summary, I meant that the opinion of one newspaper, albeit a reliable source, isn't necessarily evidence of the importance of including this on a BLP. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. I certainly share your wariness about declaring people or things "controversial" in the encyclopaedia's voice—it's done in a great many articles but always irritates me. But the text in question here doesn't do that: it doesn't make the claim "Clarke-Smith is x", but rather the entirely different claim "The Guardian described Clarke-Smith as 'x'". So there's no WP:LABEL or WP:BLP issue, because the claim that the Guardian described him in those terms isn't contentious in the least. This also means that your point that there's only one source for this is correct, but misses the point: it's unlikely, for obvious reasons, that other sources would report on what the Guardian says. Similarly, I of course agree that we don't need to include everything the Guardian says, which is why I specified, above, two additional reasons why I think this particular claim is a relevant and useful one (because it's a claim made about a very small number of a larger group of MPs, and because it tells us about how he was perceived at the crucial time of his election). Is there any form in which this could be included that you'd find acceptable? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Arms & Hearts. I have read again the reference in The Guardian for their reason (or opinion) on who were the "seven most controversial Conservative MPs" in 2019. The Guardian only gave one reason for the choice of Clarke-Smith in this list. According to The Guardian, "The MP for Bassetlaw was accused of being out of touch with reality after he said food banks were a "political weapon" and it was "simply not true" that "people can't afford to buy food on a regular basis." Clarke-Smith said: "If you keep saying to people that you're going to give stuff away, then you're going to have an increase I'm afraid," the Daily Mirror reported him to say.


 * So The Guardian is using his words from a tabloid source to come to the conclusion that this makes him "controversial". Clarke-Smith's views on food banks are already included for readers of the Wikipedia article. The WP article says that Clarke-Smith "received media attention for his views on food banks and public provision of free school meals for children from more economically deprived families."


 * I question whether there's an important need for him to be described in the Wikipedia biography as being on The Guardian 2019 list as "one of the seven most controversial new Conservative MPs" on the basis of one set of remarks reported in the Daily Mirror. I think it's sufficient to state that he "received media attention" for his remarks, which are included, and I think readers of Wikipedia are able to judge for themselves whether his reported remarks in the Daily Mirror are "controversial" without necessarily the subjective opinion of The Guardian being important as well. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While the Mirror is definitely a bad source, we cite pieces published by good sources that are based on bad sources all the time. We do this most obviously with news articles about social media: for example if the Guardian reports that so-and-so tweeted something, we wouldn't use the tweet as a source but the Guardian adds distance and lends credibility and indicates significance. Citing something the Guardian say based on something the Mirror said is no different. But it's also beside the point for reasons explained above: the specific claim we're making isn't "Clarke-Smith is controversial" but "The Guardian says Clarke-Smith is controversial", which is obviously not a claim that originates with the Mirror. I suspect we're going round in circles here and neither of us is likely to convince the other. A third opinion would probably be helpful. 3O is non-binding, but I'd be happy to defer to it as a resolution here. What do you think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If other editors think the view of The Guardian on Clarke-Smith being one of the most controversial new MPs in 2019 is important enough to include, then of course I'd go along with whatever the consensus is, Arms & Hearts. My view currently is that as the Wikipedia article already states: "Clarke-Smith has received media attention for his views on food banks and public provision of free school meals for children from more economically deprived families" it's not very important to include the subjective view of The Guardian based on that media attention he gained. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LABEL, the term "controversial" is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". One source does not indicate wide use by reliable sources, and so the term should not be included here. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. One source, however reliable, using this description doesn’t justify its use in the article. Neiltonks (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

[Double-]Barrelled Names
In British English, names such as Clarke-Smith are described as double-barrelled and not as barrelled. This error probably pervades Wikipedia and should be corrected. Soon. 87.75.101.5 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That would involve a change to the template that produces this text, and would need to be discussed on its Talk page, Template talk:British barrelled name. A discussion has been held fairly recently but seems to be inconclusive. Neiltonks (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)