Talk:Christian Wakeford

Allowances controversy
The section on Covid and allowances continues to be removed. The section is sourced from reputable media outlets and is a relevant part of the political career. Please do not remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVivacious (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As it stands, it is a hit job. Please read WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY and WP:MOS in particular. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As clearly noted by DrVivacious, noting criticism of - and by - elected public servants and in media reports is fair, legitimate and accurate. The above comment resorts to dramatised, emotive and opinion-based language and the criticism is unsubstantiated. RottenBoroughs (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Note also that there is an outstanding FOI request at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/councillor_wakefords_meeting_att?unfold=1 regarding his alleged Pendle special responsibility allowance. That will be a primary source, as is the current council website source we used & which the FOI request refers to. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Speculation about future documents' possible contents is outside the scope of wiki. See, for example, WP:V and WP:USEPRIMARY.  RottenBoroughs (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem with us mentioning Cllr Perks at length, where he notes a "comparable example" is that there are also comparable examples for what Wakeford has done, notably his fellow MP in the neighbouring constituency of Bury North, James Daly. Also, I suspect Perks may represent a party other than the Conservatives, in which case his comments could also be viewed as basic political point-scoring. - 146.200.49.138 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Criticism of an MP's parallel drawing of expenses from three public authorities is not invalidated when it is said by another public figure holding different political opinions. The report, citing an elected councillor and multiple newspaper reports, is accurate.  (If another MP elsewhere in the country has also done so, and there exists a tangible basis to link this to Cllr. Wakeford's actions, then that can be cited.) RottenBoroughs (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't removed it but it is unnecessary, in length if not purpose. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ? One sentence to introduce a 'one sentence' quote is not "long"! Criticism by elected public servants of an MP's capability to work three simultaneous jobs - as reported in public media - is of high interest to the citizens in the three areas. RottenBoroughs (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You have deleted my replies. Please fix. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsubstantiated criticism. Nothing has been deleted.  This is the third unhelpful response on this article today. Please address earlier comments before adding more. RottenBoroughs (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please put your brain in gear and check your edits, eg this deleted my replies. You are clearly inexperienced so I suggest you perhaps slow down a little. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop using offensive language. Further behaviour will be reported.  There appears to have been a parallel edit so that will give you time to read and reflect on the criticism of your changes on your talk page and above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenBoroughs (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Just fix your edit. Feel free to report me and await the boomerang for NPA on my talk page. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the original research regarding breach of Commons rules. When the Commons authorities issue a statement confirming the breach, which usually would also involve at least a reprimand, it would be ok to reinstate with a citation of that statement. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

RottenBoroughs, DrVivacious, I am going to give you two a note that explains that administrators can apply discretionary sanctions to articles on living people--I will not hesitate to do so. I just removed one BLP violation: material in the article is based on primary sources and appear to be placed in the article to suggest financial improprieties. Especially in BLPs, and especially in contentious cases, you must use proper secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Up-to-date
This article shows how up-to-date Wikipedia can be. It was only mentioned on the news tonight (Wednesday 19 January) that Wakefield had defected to Labour, and the article already describes him as a Labour politician. YTKJ (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well it was announced just before PMQs at midday. Included here at 11:47, within 4 minutes of a the first tweet. SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Owen Paterson incident
I have today made an edit for a more encyclopedic tone to the sentence reporting that Wakeford angrily swore at Owen Paterson in November 2021. I'm aware that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and my reason for the edit is not to censor the four letter "c" word. But in my view it is not particularly important to include this word. It is sufficient, I feel, to state that he confronted Paterson and angrily swore at him. Wikpedia readers are still able to understand the context of Wakeford's confrontation with Paterson. The reference is an article in The Times, which is a reliable source. But there doesn't appear to be other reliable sources such as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News Online, ITV News or Sky News to confirm the use of the actual word to indicate that Wakeford's use of the word is particularly important to include in his biography. If there were multiple reliable sources confirming his use of the word, then that would better establish the importance of including it in the article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The Independent confirms the subject stated this Christian Wakeford was reported to have called his former Conservative colleague a “c***” during a vote in parliament ... Asked about the incident, the Bury South MP told Times Radio the report of him approaching Mr Paterson was correct ... I think I’m not the only one who would have wanted to use language of that nature to him. Business Insider quote that article One MP, Christian Wakeford, admitted this week to calling Paterson a "cunt" during the voting process, and told Times Radio afterwards his language was a sign of the "quantum of anger in the party." and today The Guardian stated Christian Wakeford, the MP for Bury South perhaps best known for calling the disgraced former cabinet minister Owen Paterson a “cunt”. There seem to be plenty of other sources using c*** too:  I'd suggest that we leave aside your feelings and follow the sources. Calling someone a cunt is quite different to angrily swearing at someone and there is no need for euphemism. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello SmartSE. I was not aware of these other sources. I should have done a full Google check first. The source in The Guardian is from today and what I should have said in my previous edit was that I wasn't aware of it being in sources such as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News Online, ITV News or Sky News at the time it happened in November 2021. Or, in other words, I didn't personally see it being widely reported at the time of the incident in November 2021 to establish the importance of including it in the biography. My edit was based on the reasons mentioned earlier and not for censorship reasons. If other editors feel that it's important and encyclopedic to include the use of the word, by all means reinsert it again. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit
, I see you have made many constructive edits to the article, but I noticed you undid my recent edit, and I don't understand why. In regards to my edit: (1) Per Template:Cite news, the language parameter is only used for sources in a foreign language. (2) Many of the sources have come from the same location (London), so the location parameter is redundant. (3) The archive-url parameter for one of the citations was a broken link, as well as unnecessary because the url parameter gave the correct link.

Also, content about Wakeford's claim of blackmail was split across two sections for no apparent reason and I put it all in one section. Would you like to make any objections? Andysmith248 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to talk, @Andysmith248, and for your friendly tone.
 * You too have made many constructive edits to the article, and you have consistently upheld NPOV. So I thought long and hard before reverting you, taking a teabreak to mull it over.  My conclusion was that because you made so many difft types of change in one big edit, and I couldn't easily disentangle them (I did try), it was best to revert.  So I did reverted, and moved fwd.
 * The use of the term "foreign language" in Template:Cite news is bizarre. (I am not saying that you are being bizarre, but that the template doc is bizarre). Wikipedia is a collaboration of editors from all over the world writing articles on topics relating to every country, so in an en.wp context "foreign language" is a meaningless concept.  So I disregard that guidance as meaningless.
 * As to location, it's a standard detail of any ref. In this case, there are local, regional, and (mostly-London-based) sources, so the distinction is relevant.  I am not aware of any guidance to support its removal.
 * The archived ref was broken only by a missing slash (my typo - sorry!), so it should have been fixed rather than removed. The reason for archiving refs now is that most online sources decay, so the archived copy will eventually be needed.  It's very easy to add the archive refs while the original article is still live, but much harder to accurately do it later.
 * I was sad that my revert undid your effort to put the blackmail stuff in one section, 'cos that was obviously a good idea. My subsequent edits tried to achieve something similar, but you can probably improve on that.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , I feel that when a source is in a "foreign language", it is in a language other than the language an article is in. As all the sources here are in British English, in this instance I don't see any usefulness of stating the language in the citations. And why is a distinction needed between local, regional and national sources?


 * Thank you for clarifying the reason behind the archive-url parameter. We can leave this, and the blackmail content, to one side. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)