Talk:David Miliband

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Contents 1 Photo 2 Length of the Article 3 Triva 3.1 Blog 4 NPOV 5 Global & General Nominees LLC

[edit] Photo

Why was the photo deleted?

[edit] Length of the Article

I think some elements of this article need to be rearranged and reworded. Secondly I am sure there is lots more information that can be written.

[edit] Triva

I think the trivia section is far to big in proportion to the length of the article

[edit] Blog

There doesn't seem to be anything libellous about the blog report. Before it is removed again, can we pls have a discussion here about what exactly is libellous about it. Ta. Frelke 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think to cost a Blog by calculating how much time civil servants spend on related activities, then using a percentage of their wages to evaluate how much a blog costs to run is completely misleading. This is exactly what the Newspapers sourced have done over the few initial weeks of the Blog launch. To say that this blog costs £8000 a year to run is completely wrong an innacurate, and thus has no place on an encyclopedia. Sorry I didn't discuss it first, i'm quite new to this, but i hope you will now concur with me. thank you Jamesedwardsmith 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

James, you may well be right. But none of it is libellous. What the para says is that

• a blog said this
• a national daily agreed
• a blog said they were wrong

to me the national daily is a little more authoratative than either the blogs. Can we find a better source to reference that says that the cost is less. Perhaps another report in a national daily. Frelke 06:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's libelous because it's factually incorrect. Saying that some value has been "revealed" my some other Blog is completely wrong. How can it be revealed if the next sentence queries the very same statistic? This is supposed to be a high quality factual encyclopedia, after all, isn't it? Jamesedwardsmith 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not factually incorrect. Its factually correct.

"Journalist Ellee Seymour recently revealed on her blog the alleged £40,000 annual cost of David Miliband's blog. The Independent newspaper also reported the story. However, the figure is now thought to be £8,000, as another blogger reports."

1. Ellee Seymour did reveal this on her blog
2. The Independent reported it
3. Another blogger reported the figure to be wrong

3 facts, connected by some words. None of those facts are incorrect. Each of them has its own validating link. Now maybe the Ellee got it wrong. Maybe the indy did also. But both of them reported it. That is a fact, and that is all that is being reported here. Now has an authoratitive source confirmed what the second blogger says? Have you got a link to that? It is not libellous to report facts. Are you familiar with WP:3RR? Frelke 09:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect and would not be something that would be in an encylcopedia.

• The Blog does not "cost" that amount to run
• She did not "reveal" any costs it's merely an estimate
• Something in a Newspaper does not make it true or worthy of encylopedia
• A Blog is not a valid source of information

This persons blog may have made an opinion about costs, but the sentence in this article makes no sense, is not justified, cannot be proved and is mere speculation.Jamesedwardsmith 11:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence that you removed is saying nothing more than the three facts I have detailed above. It doesn't say, for instance, that

1. the Blog does "cost" that amount to run - instead it says that "Ellee Seymour said in her blog that ...
2. any of the 3 reports (2 blogs and one national) are correct and the other(s) wrong - instead it says that these three reports exist and you (the reader) can go and make up your own mind as to which is correct

You seem to be suggesting that the 2nd blog is correct but that a blog is not valid source of information. Some inconsistency there wouldn't you agree ?

Would you prefer the following version "The Independent newspaper alleged that the annual cost of David Miliband's blog was £40,000[1]. However, the figure is now thought to be £8,000^{[citation needed]}."

You have also suggested that it can't be proved. In saying this you are factually incorrect. You seem to be getting confused about what is a fact and what is an opinion. It is a fact that Ellie Symour reported the cost as being £40K. Now that doesn't mean that it cost £40K. It just means that Ellie Symour (and the Indy) reported that it is. The latter is proven, is a fact and can be included according to WP rules. Have you read WP:V? WP is not saying anywhere what the cost of DM's blog is. It is just reporting what others say the cost is.Frelke 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody may have made an opinion on their blog but it is not verifiable and it is in no way stuitable for "trivia" in this section. The journalists blog DID NOT "reveal" the cost of the Blog because (a) her blog quotes somebody else (b) the figure was refuted by the minister in question and (c) she does not know the actual cost. I find this Trivia point completetely misleading, as I am sure anybody else reading it would. It does NOT cost £40000 or anywhere near that ridiculous figure - some Libdem MP has plucked the figure out of the air by taking a percentage of civil service wages - do you know any other peice of government 1operations that are calculated in that way??? How can it say that the cost is nearer £8000 with no citation? This point would not be in any other encylopedia because it is at most completely inaccurate and at least misleading Jamesedwardsmith 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

James, this is not about the calculation and what is correct and what is wrong. It is about reporting in a totally neutral voice what was said. If you are suggesting we should work out the correct cost, that would be Original Research and is totally banned on WP. Have a read of the policies I have linked. Frelke 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

James, I know your newish around here, but you are falling foul of one our favourite rules, the three revert rule. You have reverted other peoples edits 5 times now. I have placed a {{3RR}} warning on your talk page and you have just removed it. BTW, it is also considered a personal attack to suggest that an editor is engaged in vandalism, when they are actually engaged in legitimate edits. You may be blocked if you continue to revert legitimate edits. Frelke 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see it, blogs are not an acceptable source, and that this is a minor, minor story in the bigger picture of Miliband's career.

Can't there simply be a line like 'Miliband was the first British cabinet member to have a blog, although his alleged use of public resources to support the blog created a minor political controversy (source)', although even this gives a minor story too much importance. Martín (saying/doing) 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. I do however suggest that the Indy is an acceptable source. Frelke 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As you say Frelke, the question is to report things in a neutral way. Stating something was revealed is not neutral. Revelaing is implicative of facts. If the facts are disputed, then to maintain a NPOV, it should be someone "claimed", not "revealed." You seem to be missing James's point completely. "Revealed" is fine according to Verifiability, but not according to NPOV - Fairness of tone. I would therefore suggest the original edit that James objected to was incorrect regardless of source. The18thDoctor 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I have cleaned up a couple of places of bias against WP:NPOV From the article. "Tony Blair made a major and almost brutal" is a point of view. "To appease the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, whose department was officially in charge of these portfolios" is not sourced and pure speculation The18thDoctor 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global & General Nominees LLC

Citation for the blog is no longer correct. I expect this will include at lot of tidying, across many pages. There is no mention of Global & General Nominees LLC on the Paul Staines gossip blog http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/.--62.136.238.65 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just done a search and can find only one ref which I shall fix. I believe that Global & General Nominees LLC was a hoax.--62.136.238.65 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)