Talk:Eric Illsley

His own perspective (worth including)
Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

pleaded/pled guilty
I changed the "pleaded guilty" to "pled guilty" as "pleaded sounded wrong to me and I assumed it was the US version.

It turns out that "pled" is the more common Scottish term, which has also found high usage in US English (but is controversial in US). That's why it sounds better to me as a Scot - I never hear "pleaded". See also "bleeded- bled" "speeded-sped" etc.

However, it does appear that "pleaded" is more common in English-English, and so given the subject of this article, it should probably stand.--Scott Mac 13:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted Scott - pled sounded American to my westcountry ears. Chambers has pled as Scottish, US, and dialect, with pleaded as the usual form. DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:English fraudsters
He's a convicted fraudster from England. There is no violation of BLP. Scott appears to have a highly idiosyncratic understanding of English. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Related discussions here at the BLP noticeboard archive, here, for a discussion of the ctegory name, and last three threads here, discussion with Scott MacDonald about his approach to this category. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Since others have shared my concerns, it isn't by definition idiosyncratic. See the discussion on the BLP noticeboard.--Scott Mac 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries, which are considered authoritative sources for the definitions of words, do not support the view that "fraudster" only applies to career criminals. We cannot make up definitions of words and then edit on that basis.   Will Beback    talk    23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has yet provided a dictionary source with the level of nuance to settle this. But we err on the cautious side on BLPs.--Scott Mac 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because the "level of nuance" doesn't exist. You can't assert something base only on your personal view and call that a policy. BLP doesn't say, "if an editor thinks, without any proof, that a term is derogatory or incorrect then it must be removed". Rather, it says that all negative material must be sourced. It is sourced that the subject committed fraud, and we have sources that say people who commit fraud are called fraudsters. Therefore there's no violation of BLP.   Will Beback    talk    00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also a fair bit of support for Scott's position, me included along with many others at the cat discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are sources to support your position then that'd be helpful. I don't see how three or six Wikipedia editors can decide the meaning of a word that is already clearly defined in standard dictionaries. (Maybe that number of Wiktionary editors could though). If editors know of a better category to reflect the subject's crime then that's fine too.   Will Beback    talk    01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, clearly he is "a politician convicted of fraud" # Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've subcategorised Category:British politicians convicted of crimes to Category:British politicians convicted of fraud. OK?--Scott Mac 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a solution to me. Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever floats your boat.   Will Beback    talk    04:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)