Talk:Jeremy Browne

Undue weight

The edit-war on this page is unseemly enough but what is worse is that the page has grown totally to be dominated by the expenses issue. Jeremy Browne is not one of those most strongly associated in the public mind with the expenses issue and yet most of what we say about him is about his expenses claim - even including a taunting image of a plant of the same species as he bought. This is a severe case of infringing NPOV through undue weight; unfortunately it is far from unique among current MPs. Either the expenses section should be pruned or the rest of his political career needs to be expanded. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled onto this page as a result of the edit war. I haven't had the chance to do enough research to know the issues. However, from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, discussion needs to take place on the talk page and not through edit summaries, and I will protect the page if need be to enforce that. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a perfectly reasonable course of action. OldTauntonian (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Formosa

I have restored the link to Mark Formosa removed by Milk76, who claims that it is irrelevant because "no election has been called". Irrespective of this, an election will have to be called before May 2010 and Mark Formosa is the prospective Conservative candidate; Formosa is therefore Browne's principal opponent and it does merit inclusion.

However, I take his point, made on the history of Mark Formosa page, that until a filing is accepted by the returning office, Formosa's candidacy cannot be definite, and have reworded the section accordingly. QuantockWarrior (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How does his intent to campaign directly effect Browne now? It makes sense to mention Browne on Formosa's page because his current notability is as a candidate preparing to stand against Browne. It makes sense to mention it on the riding's page if he's campaigning already. It's stretching a bit thin to mention him here, until a) an election is formally called or b) Browne's actions, speeches, or other messages are addressing Formosa. Until that happens, Formosa only relates peripherally to Browne, so he does not warrant a section in this article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I'm afraid. Local politics in Taunton is hotly contested and Taunton is one of the most marginal seats in the country between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The personalities of Browne and Formosa as rivals to each other are well known. Formosa has been campaigning against Browne ever since he was selected in 2005. Whether an election is on or not is not the point - because of the marginal nature of the seat, campaigning has been going on from the word go.

Moreover, Browne has attacked Formosa on a number of occasions, such as here: [1] and here: [2]. I really don't see how one can justifiably claim that Formosa is only peripherally related to Browne: he is most definitely his principal opponent. QuantockWarrior (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Next Election

If the next Election deserves a topic on an MP's page then i have proposed simply to list the new boundary changes and name. Included is a link to this constituency page and i have edited this page to include all four parties who have indicated their intention to contest the seat next time.

It does not seem reasonable to mention any one prospective candidate by name and not the others who wish to run. I cannot find any other MP page that does this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milk76 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the interests of compromise I agree to include Martin Jevon and Bill Lukins as well, though as I'm sure you recognise, this is a contest between the Lib Dems and the Tories, and it is perfectly reasonable to mention Browne's principal opponent by name. QuantockWarrior (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The necessary coverage here is to mention the new boundary. If the candidates are to be mentioned anywhere, it's there and not here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

West Somerset post added by Oldtauntonian

Piece removed by the internet site concerned when found to be untrue. After a facebook investigation found that the story had been made up and the source confirmed that it had been when confronted with the evidence.

links to gossip demonstrated to be untrue should not be included on wikipedia. It is a factual encyclopedia service. --Milk76 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was readded; I removed the second addition under WP:BLP because it did not indicate a source. If the Facebook allegation is to be added, it needs to be verified: either a link to an online version needs to be provided, or an experienced, independent editor needs to comment that they've verified it. (If I had access to the West Somerset archive, I'd check it myself.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Milk76, do you have a citation for the newspaper's retraction of the story? That would put the issue to rest. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Information has now been sourced via official West Somerset Post. —OldTauntonian (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes to that paragraph. I've replaced the quotation containing the word "pervy". Even though it is from a quote used in context and is not a direct allegation, I still think it's a red flag that needs a better source than the West Somerset Post. I also reduced the length somewhat because it gives too much weight to a relatively minor incident. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel it relevant to mention. I can put you in contact with the editor of the paper and the young woman concerned. At the time no attempt was made to take the paper to the press complaints commision. I agree that it does not warrent the initial length but feel that the page in Wikipedia ought not function as a conduit for self publicity. As Cromwell said "You can paint me warts and all." verthandi

Blinds

The Telegraph article is actually mistaken. Mr Browne appears to have claimed the full £1300 for his Venetian blinds rather than just £650. This can be seen in the PDF on the Parliamentary website: http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/jeremy-browne/Jeremy_Browne_0708_ACA.pdf. Please note pages 1 and 11 of the document. One claim for the blinds was made in February for £650. Another was made for the final £650 in March. I have edited the page to reflect the actual full claim as applied by another user of £1300. —OldTauntonian (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

West Somerset Post

I think that all of these politicians are in it for themselves.

That said, the 'West Somerset Post' is a blog and free pamphlet written and edited by John Bryan Thorne http://johnthorne.blogspot.com/2009/02/conservatives-freeze-taunton-deane.html and http://www.m2smedia.co.uk/portfolio. A conservative councillor in somerset. Calling it a newspaper to quote in an encyclopedia is quite laughable. It makes this format look very suspect.

The Tories don't use this story locally as the local lib dems claim to have the facebook logs showing it to be nonsense. Couldn't be hard to prove.

Jeremy Browne is a pretty unremarkable politician as they go. I can't see why his entry is not just about three lines long. Allowing blog entries by political opponents to be the basis of a biography is just mad. Wikipedia should cut everything not sourced from major publications.--OutragedOfOake (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, based on the link you've given, the West Somerset Post is a weekly paper. However, I'll concede that a single story, on blogspot, is not sufficient. I don't think it should be re-added without stronger sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A copy of the paper can be obtained. Also "Outraged of Oake" seems to have been an active member of first the Conservatives locally and then the Liberal Democrats locally. He seems to be a political activist with some axe(s) to grind and has done so in the local media. Verthandi, 22 September 09. (Verthandi)

M2SMedia is a small PR company run by a Conservative Councillor from within this seat, as I linked to. On their website they quote that they source, write, edit and produce the West Somerset Post, a blog and a free sheet they deliver in some areas, much like a political leaflet. M2SMedia also put out the press releases for the official local Conservative Candidate hoping to stand against the MP. Not much of an independent source Verthandi. Verthandi is also the name of a regular commenter in the local media a Tory one, of course. Surprise, surprise. C.Fred is right.--OutragedOfOake (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the ruling by C.Fred. No further sourcing has been produced, yet the contested allegation has been re added. On this basis and given it's questionable provenance i am deleting it.--90.199.61.101 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Having initially re-written for slightly better neutrality, I have now removed the text again, following its undiscussed re-insertion by Verthandi. This is not an endorsement of that position, but a temporary stopgap whilst the way forward is decided. There is clearly dispute as to whether it should be included, I'm particularly looking at Avoiding harm, and undue weight. If we give the WSP the benefit of the doubt and treat it as sourced content (rather than poorly sourced or dubious, which has been asserted by some Wikipedians), the correct procedure is removal, followed by discussion here, and to "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so." Considering the relatively low traffic to this talk page, and seemingly entrenched positions of commentators, involving a third party for a fresh set of eyes may prove necessary.

I would implore editors to read and follow the procedures, and not to simply edit-war re-inserting and removing the content. --Saalstin (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced content, but according to the verifiability policy it is probably poorly sourced, so it shouldn't be included in the article unless more sources can be found. snigbrook (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to remind all editors, particularly Verthandi to WP:AGF. I would however apologise for my initial revert of Verthandi. I didn't look properly at the edit summary so didn't realise he/she hadn't added back the poorly sourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Expenses section

Following the conclusion of the 2009/10 expenses inquiry Browne has not been asked to repay anything. Thus it seems very unbalanced to have paragraphs of highly selected details of his legitimate claims on this page.

This is not in line with any other Uk MP pages that it can be compared with. Therefore i have greatly reduced this section to try to restore balance. I would contend however that it would be reasonable to simply remove this section. --Milk76 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit you make removes any criticism on this subject whatsoever: in fact, I think it actively distorts the picture by removing any mention of the successful appeal against the Legg Report and wrongly claiming Browne was not named by the Telegraph. However, I agree that the emphasis should be on the Legg Report, and trivial claims (like the toilet brush holder) should be remove. I've had a go at writing it how I think it should be (diff) giving a brief mention to the Telegraph allegations and giving explaining the successful appeal against the Legg recommendations. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it reads well now. Good Job h2g2--Milk76 (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

General Election 2010

In an ongoing dispute about the validity of claims made by a political opponent of Browne there are claim and counter claim. I suggest that putting up half of one weeks story from a local paper, in an ongoing spat, during a campaign, displays negative bias, undue weight and is calculated to cause harm to the subject of this page durind an election campaign. I am therefore removing it from the page and propose a discussion of the validity and form that this potential content should or could take before it's inclusion. --Milk76 (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

These guys are at each other every week in this local paper. Browne has been in over five hundred articles in the last four years. This half of one article is in no way representative of his political career of biography. It is also in no way representative of the next election, his campaigning, news coverage of it or his electoral chances of victory. It must therefore be catagorised as undue weight. I support it's exclusion.--OutragedOfOake (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the wikipedia terms but this is a factual section on the specifics of the next election. this piece by oldtauntonian is not a balanced representation of anything. He must have a political interest.--90.192.34.137 (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not attempt to 'balance' it then, if you think it 'biased'. May I also point out that Milk76 is in fact, Jeremy Browne. This is why he has so heavily edited the wikipedia page. Do you think Milk76 (aka. Jeremy Browne) has a 'political interest' in editing the page 90.192.34.137? --OldTauntonian (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The point about undue weight prevents just any local press story being posted and over represented in the grand scheme. The fact that two political candidates are sending legal letters to each other going 'he said she said' does not give it weight to be included on an encyclopedia biography page. If in coming months this small sidebar escalated into a genuine piece affecting the stature of the subject of the article then that might be different. We are not in the habit of quoting every press mention for politicians on their biographies. Their pages would be volumes long and not very edifying.

There is a second point. Reading the article and it's response both sides are sending claims to the other. To put one side of a story only might be calculated as to cause harm to the reputation,standing and chances of regaining his job for Mr Browne. We should avoid causing harm! therefore on balance it seems clear to me that this revision should not be included. I would value more discussion and preferably the experience of an admin but until then the general consensus of this discussion is not to include this piece--OutragedOfOake (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Procedural note. OldTauntonian will be out of this discussion for the next 31 hours due to his three revert rule violation on the article page. Accordingly, any measure of consensus during that interval will be incomplete. —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography page for a man, who is most notable for being a member of the UK Parliament. I cannot see how the disputed piece is of any real significance to this page. I would say that there are questions of relavence and probably also undue weight. This is a problem during election time on politician's pages. I say leave it out for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.195 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)