Talk:Rupert Allason/Archives/2014/June

Living Persons
I've removed some unsourced statements. The differences can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Allason&diff=70758786&oldid=68497256

JASpencer 13:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've dug up references for some of them from the BBC. &mdash; Matt Crypto 14:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Conniving little shit" redirects here. That needs to be fixed.
 * ROFL, but deleted. &mdash; Matt Crypto 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed quotation of judge's remark in interest of NPOV. Allason was evidently regarded as an honest witness by judges in his numerous other cases.Balliol 22:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly NPOV -- the judge did make that remark, and the remark was emphasised in media coverage of the trial. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case to give a balanced picture one would have to quote all the favourable remarks of judges in the 20 cases he is reported to have won rather than single out a comment that creates a negative impression unfair to a living person. I propose a middle way whereby the comment is unquoted but the reference retained. Balliol 11:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Were those favourable remarks quoted in the press? If so, then include them. NPOV doesn't mean we have to generate an artificial balance -- listing a "good" thing for every "bad" thing we say. This was quoted in the media, and the judge's comment are very remarkable. He also said that Allason was "one of the most dishonest witnesses I have ever seen", "I have come to the clearest possible conclusion that Mr Allason has told me untruth after untruth in pursuit of this claim"(Telegraph),(Independent)(Guardian). This very much belongs in an encyclopedia. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sure that there are plenty of court reportsthat could be dug out containing favourable comments on him - you don't win 20 cases if you are a liar - though it is doubtful they would make very interesting reading in an encyclopaedia entry. The issue here is whether we are achieving a fair and balanced article about a living person. Allason/West has been the subject of acres of press coverage, as a politician, spy writer and litigant. To quote only the most contentious is to paint a biased picture. I regret that the suggested compromise solution has been rejected.  Balliol 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The judge's remarks in this particular case were widely reported in the mainstream media -- not least because they were such strong and unusual statements. It is quite appropriate, therefore, to include the quote in this article. To try and hide such details would create a biased article in favour of Mr Allason. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The objective is to have a fair article, not one biased in favour of the subject - nor against. It is notable that Matt Crypto has made half a dozen changes in the past twenty four hours, again all of them negative to Allason. It is particularly important in the case of a politician that entries should be seen to be even-handed and not subject to bias which diminishes the authority of Wikipedia. --Balliol 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, please mind where you're slinging accusations of bias: most of my changes have been to revert you removing valuable information from an article. Please stop; take this up somewhere else, like WP:RFC, if you really want to take this further. Moreover, it is even more notable that all of your changes to this article have been to present Allason in a much better light by, for example, removing widely reported -- but inconvenient for Allason -- facts, or adding sympathetic explanations for the lawsuits. I'm quite aware of the need to write balanced articles, and it looks like you should examine your own bias here before accusing others. &mdash; Matt Crypto  00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting reaction to a factual observation. Your edits speak for themselves. - Balliol 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, do you have any relationship with Rupert Allason or his father? &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cases Won/Lost
The article states the following : "In twenty out of twenty-three cases the courts found in his favour." Is there any reliable source for this? If there isn't, the statement should be taken down. The Gnome 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a quick Google, and the closest I've found so far is the statement that, "By the early 1990s, he claimed to have won 22 cases, 17 for libel" The Independent. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The "reliable source" I was looking for, then, turns out to be Mr Allason himself, who claims to have won 22 cases. (Note the discrepancy between that figure and the figure cited in the article, about 20 cases won.) One hopes that a member of the Brirish legal establishment is a Wiki user who would be willing to assist here and set us straight. Is Mr Allason truly such a successful litigant ? The Gnome 04:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the British legal profession, although hopefully not "the establishment". There is no way to check reliably the number of cases that Mr Allason won by examining legal databases. The majority of his claims appear to have been for libel or similar proceedings. Libel cases are usually tried by a judge and jury and decisions given by the jury without reasons. The only source for someone winning such a case would therefore be regular news reports. It is worthy of note that English libel law requires a claimant only to establish that the statement of which he complains would damage his reputation in the eyes of the ordinary person. Once that is shown, the burden passes to the defendant to justify the truth of his allegation, or prove that it is fair comment or published on an occasion worthy of protection. It is widely thought that English libel law is balanced too heavily in favour of claimants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.83.147.19 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dec 08 judgment
I believe we should omit the information from the December 08 judgment unless we can establish its notability by coverage from secondary sources, such as the press. We have a policy of presumption in favour of privacy, which reads, "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as ... trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." The "profoundly dishonest man" comments, by contrast, were widely reported in the press. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's a bizarre policy, however, to exercise caution over the use of primary sources but less so over secondary sources such as news reports, however reliable. I suspect that most historians would be driven to apoplexy over that policy!

Fame under two names
How many other people are well known under two or more names? Benedict XVI is probably as well known under his original name as by his papal one: Eleanor Hibbert was well known under several of her pen names: who else? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Much
Much of this article has been written by sock-puppets of Rupert Allason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.171.34 (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2001
The out-come of the 2001 case should be mentioned clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In 2001, the Judge said that Allason had altered a web site during the course of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.115.61 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

He's gone a bit quiet
Last published something in 2006? Ben Mackintyre seems to have taken up the Security Services' favoured-one role. How has Allason been making a living in for the last six years? 109.144.213.106 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Allason seems to come from a well financed family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.48 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo concerning the book "Them: Adventures With Extremists"
"The Author Ron Jonson" should read "The Author Jon Ronson" - I've made the necessary change. Meltingpot (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit by Edensentinel
I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

This has been a highly contentious page, new updates whether positive or negative should not be added without a reliable source cited. Also potentially WP:SPA may apply. Baldy Bill ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 17:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)