Talk:Jared O'Mara

Alleged incidents
Reports of alleged incidents involving Jared O'Mara from South Yorkshire/Sheffield websites keep being added to this article. The policies outlined in the Biographies of living persons article are quite strict and sources making claims which are potentially libellous (as here) need to be stronger than for uncontroversial biographical details. I have begun a discussion of this issue at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Philip Cross (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Philip Cross & Daj1 It seems that you both have entered into an edit war that has resulted in a 3 RR for both. Please be aware that this will only result in your both being blocked from editing, as you well know. No good will come from this disruptive editing. Your best bet is to cease editing the article currently and bring the discussion here with your valid points and reliable sources for either reason of inclusion or removal so that other editors can either support or oppose. As an editor myself, I must point out: the contestable material has no relevance to the section that it is currently placed in: Early life and education. Furthermore, it has no relevance to the subject overall -- it is merely an anecdote about a song lyric -- and is undue weight in relation to the size of the article content. Last, if this is a topic worthy of the subject's character, it should be a section all its own backed up by several other reliable sources and numerous other separate incidences that paint this viewpoint and lifestyle of the BLP. Otherwise, this is a projection that cannot be claimed outside of this one solitary moment within a lyric from a former band, that really has nothing to do with the article currently; and is not sufficient enough to warrant such a claim to begin with. In short: it does not belong. His character is not notable for this enough for inclusion. I will remove it until consensus is reached on this Talk Page for reinstatement with other reliable sources and consensus that the subject is notable for this. Which I think is going to be a hard sell. Maineartists (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal - as you say, such a claim would require several good sources, and the single source seems dubious itself. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Pink News
On two occasions, related to this incident, Pink News has been removed as not being reliable. removed it first, then came. There's been no discussion of this source so far, it's just been put back in again. My two pence is that Pink News is a bit tabloid-y, but Syxxpackid420 -- what do you mean when you say that Pink News has "no journalistic standards?" Inviting other main editors of this incident to the discussion --,. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 11:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would probably rank Pink News about where the Independent is, as you say a bit tabloid-y in certain things, especially clickbait headlines, but still having a decent quality on serious issues as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I initially removed the accusation of homophobia because it was actually cited solely to the Guido Fawkes blog, which is not a reliable source, despite being listed in the citation as Pink News. I wouldn't say Pink News is definitely always unreliable although I agree with the comparison to The Independent website. AusLondonder (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspension is only partial
The MSM often incorrectly reports what "suspension" means in the labour party. hence my recent revert. He is still a member of the party but suspended "from office or representation of the Party", but can still go to a few meetings and vote in internal elections. As it is impossible to suspend him as a MP, the party whip is not applied to him. I know it is perhaps OR, but this is what the Labour rule book (page 29) says:

"In relation to any alleged breach ... the NEC may, pending the final outcome of any investigation and charges (if any), suspend that individual or individuals from office or representation of the Party ... 3. A ‘suspension’ of a member ... shall require the membership rights of the individual member concerned to be confined to participation in their own branch meetings ... and activities as an ordinary member only and in such ballots of all individual members ... will not be eligible to attend any CLP meeting other than to fulfil the requirement to participate in ballots."

Rwendland (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

First autistic MP?
What about Keith Joseph? (2A00:23C7:CF0D:D000:E87E:A3F2:887A:7BAB (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC))

The article just says that he believes that he is the first. Anything beyond this is out of Wikipedia's scope. PatGallacher (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keith Joseph and Enoch Powell are believed to have had autism. (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:5D95:7702:6DF6:B225 (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC))

Fraud conviction
As O'Mara was cleared of two counts, does he also belong in the page Category:People acquitted of fraud? OGBC1992 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Describing the subject as a "convicted criminal" in opening sentence?
Yes, I know the subject has been convicted of a criminal offence, but is it necessary to use that terminology in the opening sentence? The conviction is covered in the last para of the lead & the criminal case is covered extensively within the article. The lead sentence in a political BLP generally covers occupation, political party affiliation & constituency; to be frank opening the article with "former politician and convicted criminal" sounds tabloidy, like something the Daily Mail or Sun would write in a headline. Keith Best, David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Paul White, Baron Hanningfield, Eric Illsley, Denis MacShane, Margaret Moran, Elliot Morley, Ashley Mote, Tom Wise (politician) are all political figures convicted of fraud, none of which we refer to as "convicted criminal" as we have with O'Mara. I suggest these articles are more comparable to O'Mara than the examples I was given when my revert was reverted. I don't think it's appropriate or necessary. Thoughts? DSQ (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * _ MB190417  _ (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @DSQ: I am the editor who reverted your good-faith edit. As I wrote in the edit summary with some examples, a quick Google search (1, 2) shows that it is by no means unusual to include "and convicted criminal" in the first sentence of an article, including for a politician.  For probably the closest recent comparable case, see Imran Ahmad Khan, convicted last year, whose first sentence includes "and convicted sex offender".  But of course, Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent, and this is evidently a matter of local consensus.  For what it's worth, I think it is appropriate to include "and convicted criminal" in the first sentence, at least for the duration of O'Mara's imprisonment.  While the imprisonment is mentioned later in the lead section, the conviction is notable enough to be included in the first sentence.  The phrase "convicted criminal" sounds strong (and, you are right, tabloidy), but it is the correct terminology. _  MB190417  _ (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Always difficult with BLPs - but in this case it seems to me that the public interest in him is precisely because he is both an ex-MP and a convicted criminal. So I am in favour of keeping it at present. If in the course of time he becomes an acclaimed author or multi-millionaire, or whatever, that would be moment to consier rewriting. --Smerus (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

How about "and fraudster"? PatGallacher (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "convicted" is a necessary addition here, as another user has already added. It shows a legal process has taken place and the subject is demonstrably a criminal/fraudster from the results of that process.  I don't mind between "and convicted criminal" and "and convicted fraudster": "fraudster" is more specific, but --- I'm guessing --- not correct legal terminology. _  MB190417  _ (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "and convicted criminal" but agree it's a difficult one. Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yikes Teeth.png fraudster's not much better! Ok, so maybe I'm overely sensitive when it comes to BLP's. It did make me cringe, but I won't be dying on the hill of Jared that's for sure. Thank's for your input everyone. *quickly unwatches article and moves along" --DSQ (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with convicted criminal. Aubernas (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)