User talk:Redscare81

Alan Whitehead
Hi, I appreciate we are of differing political views but I believe that a consensus regarding sections on "Burgergate" and "Criticism of Gordon Brown" based on fact should be reached in order to avoid a never ending edit war. Both sections have relevance to the article as they are properly sourced, though wording could be altered if you think it is necessary. There are plenty of controversial stories included in wikipedia entries for MPs from all parties - this MP should not receive special treatment. The addition of a "Rebellions" section was clearly added in order to represent this MP in a more favourable light, it is important that this article is not seen to be politically biased to any specific viewpoint.

I hope we can reach an agreement on this. Sotonchris (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I added the rebellions bit as I thought it was a more balanced way to represent disagreements with government than your 'Gordon Brown' headline. Why don't you add the Gordon Brown thing to that if you really think it's relevant? I don't, because it's such a completely bizarre quote it's almost certainly taken out of context, but if you really think it's a meaningful and aren't doing it as just a petty act of vandalism (which is what I took it for) then fine.

As for the Burgergate thing, the issue is that the term 'burgergate' hasn't appeared anywhere other than Matt Dean's blog. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to try and legitimise a term that is only used by a random councillor and hasn't gained more general parlance. Plus the story you linked to didn't actually feature Alan. The fair compromise, I think, would be for you to put a link up to the register of members interests and list specific things that Alan has declared if you thought it was necessary to do so.

Although, I have to ask, are your motives for doing this really to improve source material or just to mount partisan political attacks? It's not really like I see you working to post information about members interests about any other MPs. I've restrained from posting anything comparable on Moulton's page (which I see you also work on) because frankly I think it's an abuse of what wikipedia should be used for.

In short, if you want to post specific decisions Alan has taken that you think voters should be aware of, and do so in a way not laden with personal opinion, then fine. But I don't think it's OK to say 'Matt Dean and Jeremy Moulton say x' on an MP's web page. It's an absurd tactic that will eventually result in every party political geek in Britain maliciously editing all of their opponents' pages, when we should all probably be focusing, you know, talking to voters rather than each other.

Redscare81 (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)redscare81

I've taken your advice and added the daily mail quote to the rebellions section and softened the language somewhat. If you know the full story behind the quote I'd be interested to hear - It certainly took me by surprise when I saw it!

Your argument over the title of "Burgergate" is justified, however reducing the section to a link to the Register of Member's interests would be rather vague. I've renamed the section and softened the language somewhat.

I'm currently re-writing the Moulton page in order to offer a more detailed insight into the work he has done as cabinet member for resources eg. Capita. If you have any ideas they would be welcomed.

Hope this all proves to be satisfactory. Sotonchris (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)