Talk:John Sewel, Baron Sewel

wikipedia mentioned by press
Swiss media saying "the net is rushing into the scandal, and a wikipedia editor added cocaine to the hobbies" --> this --Itu (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I requested semi protection because the Daily Mail were reporting the same about wikipedia on Saturday night, presumably and most probably the Swiss press just picked up the Mail story. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP hysteria?
Aren't we being a bit too conservative here? Would mentioning cocaine explicitly (as opposed to just linking it) breach BLP? [...] seemingly showing him snorting cocaine[source1][source2]...[source200] at a party [...] Using "a powder" seems a bit of a hypocritical euphemism that is not protecting WP from anything, considering the link to cocaine. 46.208.75.117 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We have no reliable sources it is cocaine. We only have reliable sources for white powder, and an unverified claim is a BLP violation, obviously. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also these days the % quality of any white powder being cocaine is perhaps dubious. Though, what else could it have been. He was talking about Coca-Cola, and thus powder unlikely to have been Speed or Ecstasy. So why not say COCAINE!?Rodolph (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I already anwered your question, sigh, please actually read my answer. We build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources not on applying a perhap failed logic to events. Indeed it could have been almost anything, including a legal high or glucos¿se, but we dont care to speculate, we rely on verifiable sources to indicate what we should add, that way BLP protects the people we write about by not allowing editors to specualte or make unverified asertions, as you appear to want to do. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ... ha, unlike the BBC, eh?, which called Sewel a Tory at some poin. Rodolph (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I havent read any sources stating it was "a powder" they all write "cocaine". So should we follow reliable sources or apply our own failed logic to the events?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree with Maunus,Rodolph (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the word powder is now linked to cocaine, which seems fair? But my side point was that modern coke is I've read only about 10% cocaine, so is it still cocaine anyway?Rodolph (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think that is actually worse in terms of BLP. The side point makes little sense, if it contains cocaine then it is cocaine regardless of the percentage of materials with which it has been cut. Just like it is not inaccurate to say that someone drinks alcohol even if their alcoholic beverage of choice has only 4,6% alcohol in it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was sort of joking, as the whole story is silly-season stuff.Rodolph (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Squeakbox
 * Why is using "cocaine" unacceptable, but it is acceptable to link "a powder" to cocaine? It seems to be even more libelous to me, wikilinks cannot have reliable sources.
 * The only cited source has cocaine in its very title, and two occurrences of cocaine in the body of the article, which also mentions once "white powder", not "a powder".
 * You say, "We have no reliable sources it is cocaine". Of course we don't, but I'm not asking we state that it *was* cocaine. We already have a weasely qualifier there ("seemingly"), and we can add as many as necessary ("allegedly", "it was widely reported in the press"). In fact, if anything, I'm surprised that we woulnd't have many more sources for such a bold claim.
 * 46.208.119.17 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hansard 2007
I rather like the note I added: 'In an auspicious sign of things to come the House of Lords' Official Report (Hansard), on 16 Jan 2007, (around 5.40 pm, column 609), records Lord Sewel as having said:'My Lords, at this stage in the debate there is a certain temptation merely to say, “Line me up ...”.' But alas it was removed.Rodolph (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It was removed as WP:OR, since you cite nobody but yourself for it being 'auspicious' - or even relevant. And having looked at the full sentence, it clearly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for your charmless reply.Rodolph (talk)

picture?
Would the article be enhanced by a photograph of Baron Sewel? 66.67.32.161 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There are better pictures of him online, but I think the one snorting lines of coke (allegedly) and the one of him in a prostitutes bra, are not licensed for wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

divorce
Has his third wife divorced him yet for cheating on her with whores? Not like she didn't know what she was getting. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)