Talk:David Coburn (politician)

Circular
please do read WP:CIRCULAR - wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Please discuss here. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal life
Although he has a COI, I personally don't see the big deal with listing his residency as Kensington, London under a "personal life" header. The only issue is I don't want to invest the time in doing it (semi-retired) and it needs more information than simply: "He's gay and resides in Kensington, London". If someone could see to this I think we can keep everyone happy and improve the article. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 17:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, being a Member of the European Parliament representing Scotland, his main and official address for electoral and other public and general purposes necessarily has to be an address within Scotland. To claim that "Mr Coburg "lives" in Knightsbridge" would, in effect, be tantamount to (the same as) indirectly accusing him of committing some sort of an electoral fraud here in the United Kingdom, or even of committing criminal fraudulent representation in Scotland, and it would most certainly be libellous. Perhaps a safer and a more neutral wording, such as "He divides his time between Edinburgh (as he claims), London (no particular need to specific spell out which part of London, and least of all, which part of Central London, that he probably has a flat; personally, I don't see; but I have no strong personal opinion about the inclusion of Knightsbridge), Brussels and Strasbourg", on word along those lines, and to that effect, would be preferable?! (It is probably academic now anyway.) -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Guardian story
I think this is noteworthy and deserves a mention. So long as we avoid any hint of self-reference I think it should remain in the article. The Guardian is a respectable source for this. --John (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As is the Scotsman, as is STV. Here is a quote from the Scotsman article: 'Mr Coburn’s chief of staff, Arthur Misty Thackeray, dismissed the incident and said that “David’s not an IT expert”.

He said: “I can’t believe some idiot has tried making a story about something that is open-source and viewable to the public.

“The staff team do not run a Wikipedia page for David.

“A Wikipedia page is up in David’s name and there were edits made which David believed were inaccurate and lies.

“He attempted to change them to accurate statements but obviously the Wikipedia entries kept being changed back and he persisted in trying to change them and ended up blocked.

“There were various entries about David’s schooling and university time which were inaccurate.

“But it goes to the heart of the fact that David’s not an IT expert, so things like Wikipedia aren’t his strong point.

“He’s gone there in good faith to try and change it, but people can put any old rubbish up and lo and behold after trying to put things right he’s ended up blocked.”'

--John (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But also, the Guardian story says that he directed staff to remove the information as well. Hence the addition. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you guys going to edit war over this ?  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 20:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, it's confusing, isn't it? Reading all three sources it seems clear that he did it himself. The Scotsman is a reputable paper and it is publishing a quote with Coburn's party spokesman saying that he did it. That is good enough for me. --John (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Although not for everyone, apparently. Ciao! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

blocked
the articles state a member of staff of Mr. Coburn was blocked - not Mr. Coburn himself, what's with the revertions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is more complex. The Guardian says it is Coburn, the Scotsman quotes Thackeray as saying so, while STV attributes to Thackeray that "MEP had tasked a member of his staff to make the changes and had not done so himself". Since it is a BLP, we need to set the highest standards. How about this?
 * ''An account operated by Coburn's office was blocked. Coburn's office confirmed the edits were by them, and some, but not all, news outlets, attribute those edits to Coburn himself.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Which account? This one User_talk:David_Coburn_MEP? This should be named in the article, so everybody can see the user contributions history. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 07:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on David Coburn (politician). 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/20150501224630/http://news.stv.tv:80/scotland-decides/318886-ukip-candidate-david-coburn-mep-banned-from-editing-own-wikipedia-page/ to http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318886-ukip-candidate-david-coburn-mep-banned-from-editing-own-wikipedia-page/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

David Coburn (politician) → David Coburn – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. Unreal7 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of this as there is already a David Coburn article for the actor of the same name. Seems more appropriate to leave the disambiguation page as David Coburn for simplicity. We have: David Coburn (actor) and David Coburn (politician). Why change it to David Coburn and David Coburn (actor)? Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The actor, David Coburn (actor), is older, far more well known, and has had the name longer. He is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suggest leaving as is. The disambiguation page allows everyone the choice of actor or politician. Your way will force everyone to one article, even if they want the world famous Coburn. The actor has a bigger claim to fame and more right to that article name than the politician. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 11:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell (American soldier)
 * Hmmm..."the actor...has had the name longer". Never heard that argument before.  I guess we should move Grace Jones and Oliver Cromwell to make way for Grace Jones (supercentenarian) and Oliver Cromwell (American soldier).  However, I still support the move per nom, i.e. per WP:TWODABS.  —  AjaxSmack  02:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My argument is primarily that the actor is world famous and much more well known than a politician of a small party in the UK. I would use the same argument to prevent Jack Nicholson (politician) from taking Jack Nicholson over the more famous and well known worldwide of the two. Seems like common sense to me. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 08:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I also wish to correct something. The actor hasn't had the name longer - I mixed their ages up. But, the actor has had an article since 2006, while the politician has had one only since 2014. Again, common sense seems to point to changing nothing, or changing David Coburn (actor) to the primary David Coburn. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 08:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- the idea that the politician is the "primary topic" is not persuasive. Indeed nothing has been offered to support it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not see enough evidence to suggest Coburn the politician is the primary topic. AusLondonder (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see any argument or logic behind this requested move at all. Not a personal attack on the OP, but my opinion on this request. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 12:55, 19 June 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.