Talk:Derek Conway

Corrupt?
An IP editor has been repeatedly inserting the word "corrupt" into the opening sentence of this article. The artcile indicates that a parliamentary investigation found that the extent of the payments to his son was excessive, and recommended sanctions. That of itself does not provide sufficient grounds for Wikipedia to declare him to be corrupt. There is no mention of a formal allegation that Conway deliberately abused his position, rather than making an error of judgement. A term such as "corrupt" should only be used here if it is backed up - verbatim - in a credible source, which must be cited. Without supporting evidence, not only does it violate Biographies_of_living_persons but also original_research and Neutral_point_of_view. Please read these policies and if you still think it right and necessary to descibe Conway as corrupt please add citations which substantiate the description. Thanks - Timberframe (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Political scandals in the United Kingdom
User:Ohconfucius removed this category tag, with the edit summary the subject may have been involved in a scandal, but was not himself a scandal. I can't fault the logic of the argument on purely linguistic grounds, but after looking at what the category contains I think this is too literal an interpretation of the category's scope. The category contains many articles which relate to specific people who have been at the centre of scandals; its associated main article, Political scandals in the United Kingdom, has an entry for Conway's paying his sons. It seems perfectly reasonable and consistent, therefore, to categorise the Conway article in this way and so I've re-instated the cat tag. Hope this is an acceptable explanation. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Update
I have changed tense on statement regarding membership of a Parliamentary committee after re-election in 2005 to reflect fact he is not now (2012) a Member of Parliament itself.Cloptonson (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)