Talk:Mark Lancaster, Baron Lancaster of Kimbolton

Name
This article should be moved to John_Mark_Lancaster to make it more correct given that it is his birthname Froo.au (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We use the common recognizable name for article titles, so it's correct here. SeveroTC 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring and three revert rule violations
User:Bbcbbcdddddd and User:Bastin are engaged in an edit war with very terse explations for their reasons in doing so. Would they please use this space to justify their positions so that other users can comment and hopefully reach consensus. Immediately and before any other edits to the article, would they each review the Wikipedia policies WP:Bio and WP:3RR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's rules are subject to numerous instances of breach that amount to character assassination. Witness:


 * 1) My deletion of sections are deleted per WP:BLP.  If you disagree, WP:CITE.  You are required to follow the rules under WP:CITE to protect Wikipedia from accusations of both impartiality and libel.  Please respect policy.
 * 2) The change back to an illegitimate version was performed without justification.
 * 3) The change back to an illegitimate version was performed by a user without ANY edits that aren't related to Mark Lancaster.
 * I put it that the rules of Wikipedia have been put somewhat aside in the interest of character assassination. This so-called 'edit war' seems quite easy to resolve. Bastin 02:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The material on Mark Lancaster was taken from newspaper & web sources, as you can easily check. There is no character assassination involved, just citing of things that Mark Lancaster has done. Although I thought I'd cited everything adequately, I have put in the extra citations you wanted.Mphammer (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit war is continuing, a new user has been removing all negative content from the article. I restored it the first time, but it looks like it may violate NPOV as half of the article was about the expenses scandal.  Another user has restored the sections; I think the information should stay but it probably needs to be rewritten.  I've removed the personal life section as the only source cited is a tabloid (the Daily Mirror), and controversial material such as this needs multiple reliable sources. snigbrook (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think 'Springbrook' should read more newspapers. The Personal life section is accurate. Maybe he should take some time to do some proper research - and also not slate tabloid newspapers in such a way.


 * The problem is that it is disputed, and would need more sources even if the Daily Mirror was a reliable source. Maybe some research is needed, but content that violates the biographies of living persons policy should be removed immediately, instead of waiting until better sources can be found. snigbrook (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I always thought Wikipedia was for relevant information only. Therefore character assassination, personal deformation etc should not be included. Do onto others as you would have others do onto you and all.


 * The article was biased (I noticed this after I reverted the first edits you made to the article), however some of the controversy is verifiable and should be mentioned in the article if there is enough relevant coverage in reliable sources – it looked like it was properly sourced before, but some of the sources cited in the article didn't mention Mark Lancaster, so probably shouldn't be used. snigbrook (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Unbiased eyes
I don't know the first thing about UK politics, except that you are still a backwater Monarchy or something, being Yankee scum, myself. I've shrunk the section in a way similar to how I'd do the same to a US politician - if the scandal was unique to the individual, or was highly linked to the individual, it should be mentioned in the article about the indiviudal, otherwise it's appropriate for a more general article. If I removed too much, or too little, I welcome you Royalists telling me about how your angry-yelling political system works, and why some other info should/should not be included. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal was a major scandal; MPs generally were criticised, and some were specifically mentioned but it doesn't look like Mark Lancaster was one of them. The "personal life" section was also disputed (although it's been removed now)  – I don't think the one source cited is enough, as it has been suggested by Fatzulu that it is biased and doesn't tell the full story (also there are slight contradictions in different sources I can find). snigbrook (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous to say that Lancaster was implicated in the British Council row which was all about not declaring trips as Lancaster clearly declared his trip the day he returned with the electoral commission as can be seen on their website www.electoralcommission.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsortj (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the source, and I think maybe the British Council could be mentioned, but I've removed it as "implicated" is misleading (according to the source, the row was about whether Michael Martin was withholding information, and Mark Lancaster was only mentioned as one of the MPs who had made one of the trips). snigbrook (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * More information about the British Council but I can't find third-party coverage of this, and the controversy isn't relevant enough to be included in this article, so I've removed the section. snigbrook (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection
For edit warring and biography of living persons concerns, this page is semi-protected for one week. Other admins are free to modify, extend, or shorten this as appropriate. Jonathunder (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal life
Biased and irrelevant content removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcyrty (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As the topic heading clearly states 'personal life' then clearly that relates to said person's personal life whether the person works as a politician or a fireman. This person's entry should not be exempt from including highly relevant, accurate information about the said person - as do thousands of other Wikipedia entries. It appears that people's political persuasions are coming to the fore here and must stop. There is no ruling that says accurate information, be it personal or otherwise should not be included. It is highly relevant information which is in the public domain there should be no exeptions to the rule and everyone should be allowed the same treatment irrespective of class, race or gender.

Editors are kindly reminded that Wikipedia is about facts and not about political persuasion. The recent unadulterated edits were blatent attempts at glossing over the truth and cherry-picking events. I have made genuine edits relation to facts with the correct citations. Editors are reminded to refer to (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) before making political edits that bear no relation to reality and are unnecessary to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcyrty (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As this is an article about a politician, it is appropriate that most of the article is about politics. Just because something has been mentioned in two newspapers doesn't mean it should be included in the article; as it has been removed and the Biographies of living persons policy has been referred to it is probably more appropriate to discuss on the talk page, instead of reverting with a misleading edit summary. snigbrook (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored the chronological part of it, as it provides context, but the rest appears to be tabloid-style comments and not the type of content suitable for an encyclopedia. snigbrook (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How is the content biased, and why should it included comment made to tabloid newspapers? snigbrook (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Would editors please refer to Biographies of living persons before editing this article. Some recent material was little more than prurient tabloid gossip, which is why I edited it heavily. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Snigbrook (and many of the other comments): we should include only encyclopaedic content. We should obviously mention that he was married and is now divorced, but the tabloid gossip should disappear. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree -- WP ought not be a tabloid in nature. Collect (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: The source cited says "18 month" and does not say "2007 - 2009" and also says specifically the affair was after the separation -- I would ask that this be corrected in the article. WP says to use thw actual cite and not to make statements not directly sourceable to the cite. I am also concerned that the baby is not relevant to the BLP in and of itself, even if we allow the mention of the affair after separation. Collect (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't word that very well, but I think you fixed the worst of that. It says 18 months, and the article was published in March 2009. Assuming the article is reporting on the separation within 3 months of it happening (which it appears to), that would equate to 2007-2009. It sounded a bit crass to focus phrase all the dates based on the end of the relationship, but I have no objection if you wish to rephrase this. --h2g2bob (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The critical issue was a possible inference that the affair began before the separation -- which would not be a justified inference based on the cite. Hence making it clear that 18 months was the length of the affair as well -- as some might otherwise view the dats as inclusive . In any case, it appears that the article shall now avoid the worst of the additions, Collect (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * New editor seems bent on same behavious as prior ones wrt inserting improper material per sonsensus. Collect (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry
I suspect that, and  may be sockpuppets because they have made very similar edits to this page. You are welcome to comment on this: the discussion page is at Sockpuppet investigations/Rttyplt. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * has explained his motivations in the "Personal Life" section of this Talk Page above. --Stroller (talk)

and look a bit dodgy to me. These accounts have made no other contributions to wikipedia except for editing this page, and I find these edits a bit flattering. --Stroller (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Britiish council trip
Mphammer (who might be another sockpuppet) has made a better edit ([ diff]) to the page, re-adding some of the expense parts, and I think it's mostly good. Although the British Council Trip is more about Michael Martin than Lancaster, I've got no strong opinion about inclusion. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Mark Lancaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605205605/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/1/shared/mpdb/html/405.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/mpdb/html/405.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090525155411/http://politics.guardian.co.uk:80/person/0,,-6047,00.html to http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-6047,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Lancaster. 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/20090925141223/http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/international_development/international_development_members.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/international_development/international_development_members.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rt Hon Mark Lancaster TD MP.jpg

No ref he's Brigadier
Checked his service number 531664 on London Gazette. Only promoted to Colonel in 2019. How can he be Brigadier so soon?

BlueD954 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have just checked his army number again today and he is still not listed as being promoted. I also searched for "Colonel to Brigadier" for last two years and nothing there either. I have just tarted up a conference citation where he is listed as a Brigadier but surely the Gazette is the more authoritative source. I will tag as dubious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * according to the Gazette, supplement 58580 Page 494 dated 15/01/2008 he was promoted to Major 13 May 2004 with seniority 1 March 2002. (IE when he first wore the rank.) This means his promotion to Major wasn't published until nearly six years after he first wore the rank.  I'm not sure London Gazette publications should be relied on for prompt updates. perfectly legitimate that he is a substantive Brigadier without it having yet been published in the Gazette as above case demonstrates  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzlepalace65 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is fair comment (I blame the Army, not the Gazette, it is they who should push this out). But it doesn't get away from the fact that we have no reliable source that says he has been promoted and this could be a spoof (I doubt that it is, but how can we tell without evidence. Per wp:BLP, we can't write whatever we like about living people). It doesn't have to be the Gazette, the Chronicle and Echo is fine. --19:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blame away. BlueD954 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Appointment as a Brigadier
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-lancaster-17417836/

Deputy Director Joint Warfare, Strategic Command

But Linkedin is not a credible source I believe and that is his own account.

Do not add until agreed.

BlueD954 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF applies to uncontroversial claims. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)