Talk:Tim Montgomerie

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 was nominated for deletion on November 10 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

[edit] Major revisions

Okay. A few things. First, the ridiculous motion above about 'deletion'. Hmmm, apparently the guy is unimportant, except for the fact that he started and administers a web page which happens to recieve tens of thousands of hits per month, and is by all accounts a serious force in Tory grass-roots politics. Now, whether you like the Tories or not should have nothing to do with what ends up on a specific page. I'll go out on a long limb here and say that the deletion motion was prompted by a very small group (i.e. one or two) who simply wanted to see his profile go because they have a gigundo problem with ConservativeHome. If you do not believe me, please, by all means, do some research on the people who were pushing for the deletion.

In any case, now for the main reason for me writing this. I happened to come home from work today and thought it would be lots o' fun to go through the 'citations' on Montgomerie's WP page. And, guess what? Mostly crap! Many of them were misleading, and meant quite obviously as smears, and some of the 'cited' writing in this article had nothing to do with the citations! Imagine that! Wow! So I did some major re-orging. And deleted a dead link citation. Cheerio.

ps..no, i neither know him nor have a hat in the ring concerning his politics. I'm an American in New York, as it happens. Good God. longlivefolkmusic 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Hmmm. Guess what? An American? Good God. Imagine that! Wow! Real swell! But whooaa, horsey - does that automatically guarantee political neutrality? Guess it does, huh! Sorry, not a personal attack, honestly, I've become a real fan over the last twenty-four hours, and if you're the Wikipedian to fight to keep a fine-looking man like Tim Montgomerie and all his works generously represented on these pages, I'll be in your corner any day of the week.

P.S. And, truly, I never ever would have guessed you were an American if you hadn't mentioned it - sheesh! (Now gallop horsey, gallop!) Sofia9 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments funny. But please, let's stay focused on the article

And so it goes. Guess I deserved the above witty riposte, with my tone and all. Good opportunity to throw out some profound and biting anti-Americanism. Of course there was no serious reason for me to bring up where I live, but the point was that I am interested in at least an attempt, an attempt, at an objective article, and that I have no guiding interest in slanting it in any particular direction. After all, accusations of 'friends' or 'employeess' or what-not abound in WikiP. And apparently mocking a contributor is not a 'personal attack'. Instead it is just...what?

Yes, my tone was not serious, but the point was. Please read citation #10 from the old Tim Montgomerie entry (before my changes) and tell me exactly how it supports the assertion that TM is criticising DC's courting of 'middle class swing voters'. Last time I checked — before I dawned me cowboy hat and saved the world — citation #10's link is to a bbc article on Hague&co's trip to Washington. Old citation #9 at least has TM mentioning 'Morrison' voters, but it is a bizarre misrep to call that a TM attack on DC's (apparently diabolical) plan to win 'swing voters'.

Expanding articles through worthy citations is great. Throwing in citations that have little or no relevance to what you're writing in an article subject, not so great.

Better yet, compare the LabourHome entry with the ConservativeHome entry. The latter article suffers from the same crap as TM's, with many of the same g*dd*mn citations. What's the word? Ah yes. sheesh.longlivefolkmusic 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I put in a number of citations as part of a (now dead) notability query. Could you please list the citations that you deleted and why you did so? JASpencer 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Using as a ref the 19:25, 29 January 2007 version, before my edits.... I removed two citations, numbes 1 and 10. Citation #1 was a dead link to the ccf page ('New CCF Director Sought'). The next citation (still there -- #2 at the time and now #1), from an online magazine, also talks about the same subject, TM and his career, ccf, etc. The old citation #10 ('Tories pursue meeting with Bush') from the NYTimes, was as far as I could see not relevant to its placement in the article. In it, TM is quoted at the end about how blogs in the near future will have a great influence on British politics, etc. I didn’t think that a general article on Tory foreign policy was relevant here, even with a small quote from TM, because his visibility in the media is well supported by the other very good citations. But I can see it's worth when framed as a notability query, since apparently there was a push to delete the article some time ago. Maybe we could add it back if we want to add a sentence about how TM is optomistic on the future of blogging, but I think it would be rather redundant. Cheers.longlivefolkmusic

Thank you for that. Agree with getting rid of these. JASpencer 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)