Talk:Paul Staines

N.B. Paul Staines the person is not the same as the "Guido Fawkes" blog brand

The whole article is unbalanced by this fundamental confusion. --Pds2012 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

From the evidence, is it not clear that Paul Staines IS the person behind "Guido Fawkes"? 2.96.98.107 (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Move to Paul Staines?

It looks as though this article is going to be more about Paul Staines than his pseudonym, Guido Fawkes. I propose creating a Paul Staines article and moving this page to it. Alan Pascoe 16:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Guido Fawkes blog is no longer primarily written by me.--Pds2012 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Progressive Democrat Membership and Irish Citizenship

He mentions on his blog several times that he is a member of the Irish political party "The Progressive Democrats", he also mentions he has Irish citizenship Apollonaire1980 15.39, 24 July 2007.

Citations: [1][2] [3] How reliable is an article penned by the subject when we know from court documents, that, by the court's account, he was a British subject as late as 2002?]http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/458.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exilegareth (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC) This is just stupid, I am an Irish citizen and passport holder--Pds2012 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

Citations needed under Early life and education

I got these facts from Altered State : The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, as this is a link to Amazon and you can search inside the book (using the search term 'Staines'). But I can't work out how to cite this reference. I will come back to it in due course, but if anyone can help that would be great!) Skandha ji 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the templates shown here [4]--62.136.238.65 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Source of Lawyer's Letter

The information about the Nevis company is cited here - does anyone know where this letter is from? As a blind link, how reliable is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.123.235 (talk • contribs)

Not very, I've removed it. I've left the text in, apart from the statement about Nevis. The rest of the information appears in the footer of the Guido Fawkes blog. Alan Pascoe 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted the reference to Nevis with improved sources. DWaterson 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This section has a problem - a legal problem. The reason why the blog is published through Nevis is stated to be through some desire to make libel actions more difficult (the claim being that you have to deposit $25,000 to start a libel case). However, this is actually irrelevant. So long as the author of an alleged libel is based in the United Kingdom, they can be sued through the United Kingdom courts. The Nevis connection would only apply if anyone wishing to sue wanted also to target the publisher, but such actions are only secondary to the main action which is always directed at the author. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that Nevis is an actual jurisdiction? I have always understood if to be just one half of the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. See here [5] that the tourist board for Nevis links to St. Kitts and Nevis government site [6]. 62.136.238.65 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to Guido Fawkes

The redirect is inappropriate. Guido is much better known than Staines. 147.114.226.174 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The original article was for Guido Fawkes (blogger), but very quickly the article contained more material about Paul Staines than his blog persona. Alan Pascoe 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some arse buggering about appears to have removed the only reference we have that Staines is actually Guido Fawkes. Since we know that Staines is in a litigious mood, is it safe to link his name to a blog for "Tittle Tattle Gossip and Rumours"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.238.65 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Now it is interesting how some "arse buggering about" is just the kind of term Paul Staines might use on his site. That said, whether or not "Staines is in a litigious mood", there is more than enough information out there to connect him to a blog site that contains crude insults, mean-minded Gossip and nasty Rumours. For are we not being overly careful here? 80.44.234.214 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from the Subject

It is not my intention to amend this article in any way.

Assertions are being made without any evidence beyond hearsay and the scribblings of journalists whom I have never met or spoken with.

I am a private person and am increasingly bemused by what is taken for fact. I hold no public office, no position in a public company and no position on a board or a public body of any kind whatsoever. Just because something is written elsewhere does not make it a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul.Staines (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Paul, feel free to edit your own article if you wish, this is no longer a taboo given the current revision of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. If there is a comment which you contend is untrue, and in the article it is either unsourced or the source is wrong, then correct it. Personally, I can't see anything terribly controversial or unbalanced myself at the moment, whether it be from the 'scribblings of journalists' or not, however... Whilst you may be right in stating you are a private individual with no official role, you undoubtedly are notable in Wikipedia's terms as the author of one of Britain's top-ranking blogs. If you'd prefer that this article be located at Guido Fawkes rather than under your own name, I assume people would be happy to consider that request. DWaterson 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you any verifiable evidence beyond speculation as to the identity of the author of the Guido Fawkes blog? No. It is not for me to edit your article. Suffice to say that from the very first line it is riddled with errors. The whole article is unsupported by the evidence and based on mere assertion. Paul.Staines

• 1. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not the original author of this article, I am merely a minor contributor to it, and I do not speak on behalf of the Wikipedia community.
• 2. Surely you must agree, as with some of your own articles, that there is a point at which the weight of circumstantial evidence becomes unavoidable. Every source I have read names Mr Paul Staines as the author of the Guido Fawkes blog, and as such there appears to be no evidence to the contrary, beyond these comments. This is sourced according to the linked citations; if these are all incorrect, then that is unfortunate and should be corrected, based on new more accurate sources.
• 3. The first paragraph alone makes a number of value judgements, which I personally do not think are unreasonably unencyclopaedic; however, the community may disagree and wish to revise in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
• 4. In any case, I personally am a keen reader of the Guido Fawkes blog, and have no interest in entering into a dispute, so hereby withdraw from this discussion. DWaterson 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheer weight of evidence, and media statements, strongly link Staines to Guido, so that's sufficient for the article. Guido's repeated mentions in the media (and complaints if they take his stories without doing so) make him a public figure, so this article is warranted. Describing him as a conservative is always a value judgement, but you don't have to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party to be a socialist, and although Guido was originally described as an "equal opportunities stirrer" by the media when they first noticed him, the recent political slant of his column does tend to lead a number of people to feel that would describe his political leanings as not being completely non-partisan [7] [8]. As such, I feel the current statements are defensible, as reflecting the current opinion in the related media. 128.243.220.41 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

After untold years of not touching this have finally relented and begun correcting falsehoods and trying to balance some of the content. Also updating it to reflect developments since it was first assembled. It should be borne in mind that by and large this article has been written by people who dislike me to an almost obsessive degree. For example out of hundreds of media appearances by me over the years this article focuses in a hugely unbalanced way on a few that have been negative. Will try to link facts to citations. --Paul (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Second Comment from the Subject

The Wikipedia guidance is Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

Having looked at the edits it is clear that some people are determined to use this as a place to settle scores. I object to unnecessary references to my family which seems to invade their privacy. What relevance do my parents, wife or children have to matters? The given CV is a patchwork mystery. I don't at this time own a single share so the business claims are fanciful. The comments on my career in finance in this Talk section are as defamatory as they are ignorant. The incessant arguing over my freely stated and proudly held nationality bizarre. The 60 footnotes are the product of internet obsessives. The disproportionate treatment of aspects of my alleged biography are bizarre. Do I really warrant this much detail much misplaced? I am reluctant to amend the text for fear of giving credence to some of the wilder claims nor do I wish to write my autobiography.

I think the editors should seriously pare this article back to concentrating on the published work on the blog, do I really warrant more footnotes than Isaac Newton?

By restricting comments on Staines exclusively to those found on his (current) blog we risk producing a highly sanitised biography in this case. Personally I think there should be background information from the early Guardian article, plus plenty of references to articles which he published in the Liberator. This way we can create a more rounded biography of Staines.--91.104.10.90 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no recollection of having written articles for a publication called "Liberator". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.staines (talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Friends Reunited as a source for the subject's schooling

The Friends Reunited reference is clearly written by Paul Staines, is detailed and of long standing - it is as good a reference as some of the conjecture on this page surely? Nakedbatman 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a poor source. The existing source is a published book, which is clearly more reliable. This is all made clear on WP:V. Alan Pascoe 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say, it does raise doubt about the accuracy of the current claim about his schooling. Whilst friendsreunited is clearly a dubious source, nevertheless the conflicting evidence perhaps indicates we should remove the statement altogether until it is clarified by a third source? After all, published books are often wrong too... DWaterson 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because FU is an unreliable source, I don't think it is strong enough to question the reliability of a published book. Of course, I am making assumption; I am assuming that the book actually states what is in the article. I have not seen the book myself. On the other hand, I have not seen the FU entry. When I visited the link provided by User:Nakedbatman, all I got was a login screen. Alan Pascoe 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's my concern too. I haven't read the book either, and there is a possibility that it is either incorrectly sourced, or does not actually support the claim it is supposed to do. My inclination would be, given Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, to delete the statement altogether pending further reliable sources being identified. I'm not convinced that it is a question of the relative weight to be ascribed to a (purportedly) reliable vs a (purportedly) unreliable source, rather that, even if one is in fact unreliable, it has nevertheless cast enough reasonable doubt over the whole matter to take precautionary action. DWaterson 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it. It appears likely that it is false. It's not like the book is available online to verify it anyway Nssdfdsfds 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hull University?

The Guardian article says Staines was at Humberside College of Higher Education, which was merged into the University of Lincoln, via the "University of Lincolnshire and Humberside". So unless someone has a good source, we should avoid saying Staines was at Hull University. (NB Back in 1986 the college wasn't yet a Poly, which happened in 1990.[9]) Rwendland 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall Paul from the Yorkshire Area FCS. He was at some poly in Hull, if I recollect correctly. I think he got kicked out for disrupting a graduation ceremony by presenting the Principal with the Order of Lenin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.37.3 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We could use the David Rose regrets letter[10] as the Humberside College of Higher Education source, without having to ref the 1986 Guardian article. Rwendland (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He's listed on Alumni of the University of Hull which I've just queried on its talk page. In the absence of comments to the contrary, I'll remove this in a while. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

UK Atari Video Games Champion.

Can anyone provide a reference for this material? --62.136.238.65 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite a claim, maybe we should give it more prominence on the page?--Pogsurf 10:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we delete it? Sounds good to me.--Tom 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a reference, to "Collin, Matthew; Godfrey, John (1998). Altered State: The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, 2nd edition, London: Serpent's Tail. ISBN 1852426047. " However, someone's removed the reference. Incidentally it appears it was actually the Atari Asteroids championship. There's a fairly interesting, even if not WP:RS, from Staines, saying it in the comments here: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003392.html The book is a perfectly good source though. Nssdfdsfds 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It was sourced, but the source got lost as collateral damage in this edit: [11]. The reference can be restored when the page is unprotected. If possible, I will try and get hold of a copy of the cited book and verify the reference, but I'm not sure whether my local library will hold such an, eh, interesting text :) Cheers, DWaterson 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the book was rather more reliable than its summariser. Try searching for 'Atari' here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1852426047/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-9373996-5148159 Page 99 says: Staines came first in "an Atari Asteroids championship". He's also described as a Harrow schoolboy - not a Harrow School boy. Obviously whoever added the claim in was more familiar with Harrow the school than Harrow the rather large and populous area of London..... It's no different from describing someone as a former Essex schoolboy. Nssdfdsfds 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Altered State : The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House

Re [12]

Staines is on pp 99-101,108,110-114,116,118,120 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Unbalanced article

The article does not mention any criticism of the Guido Fawkes blog, of which there is much, and therefore breaks WP:NPOV. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? I had a quick search on Google News, and I could find *nothing* critical of Guido Fawkes or his blog. No reliable sources whatsoever. Unless you want to refer to the petty blog squabbles that have formed in the last few months? Surely not. Nssdfdsfds 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the Telegraph piece that said he should go to jail? And his spat with the New Statesman? But your argument is ludicrous. If he is notable as a blogger then his blog is notable; then blogs that make significant criticism are notable. The source is the blogs. Blogs are sources for what is contained on them, if it is notable. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, read WP:NPOV: "where there are or have been conflicting views" (which there certainly have) "these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight .. and all significant published points of view are to be presented". Published includes published on the web. The article does not present the significant published point of view that Paul Staines' blogging is harmful to democracy. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you misrepresenting things so blatantly. Said he should go to jail? Are you serious? It said nothing of the kind, please don't be so ridiculous. Here's the article:

"The Charity Commission has warned an online blogger he could go to jail unless he submits information he has gathered about the activities of the Smith Institute, the left-wing think tank under investigation for links to the Labour Party.

The formal direction was issued to Paul Staines, who runs the Guido Fawkes political website, ordering him to release documents relating to the institute by Friday."

[13]

This is not saying he *should* go to prison, in fact he and others sympathetic to him used it humorously. [14] [15] In any case, the Telegraph article is ALREADY REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE.

'Should' means the same as "could" when a Yorkshireman uses it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this 'spat' with the New Statesman, I only see this. [16] It's hardly a spat, there's one sentence that's critical, "Once again he has not allowed accuracy to get in the way of a piece of mischief." You could of course report this, but it would only make sense in the context - something like "Staines alleged that the New Statesman had improper links to the Smith Institute and had failed to cover the funding scandal, Martin Bright responded saying that they didn't think their readers were interested, and accused Staines of being more interested in mischief than accuracy." I would have no objection to this. But covering the few lefty bloggers who've been attacking him? Get real. Nssdfdsfds 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a significant published point of view. "Get real" does not amount to an argument, certainly not one that gets around WP:NPOV which is absolute and non-negotiable. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Staines' blog is not a reliable source on anyone other than himself. That is why we do not report *any* of the many allegations he makes, unless they have been further reported on *reliable sources*. Until a blog spat becomes more than just a few bloggers squabbling it is not reported here. That is why there is room for debate on referring to Tim Ireland's blog in Anne Milton, because Tim Ireland's attack blog was reported in The Times. Without that mention it would never be in the article. Blog attacks are simply not reported on wikipedia without reliable sourcing. Nssdfdsfds 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah now, I see where you have gone wrong. A blog is a reliable source as to what is on the blog wherever that is relevant to the topic under discussion, not just in an article on the blog itself. The position you advance has become irredeemably confused: the idea that we can only report what's said on a blog when The Times says what it is, when we actually have the blog itself, is ludicrous. What's said on a blog can be significant even if no newspaper or other source picks up on it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Temper please, gentlemen... the article is currently protected due to edit warring, and the threat still does not appear to have lifted. Perhaps this would be a fine time to try to gain consensus on suitable wordings here on the talk page. Fys, would you like to suggest proposed edits to the article that would address your concerns? However, editors on all sides are going to have to give some leeway otherwise we are on a hiding to nothing here. And I would remind everyone of the importance of WP:BLP where anything controversial that cannot be referenced by high quality sources is concerned - especially that "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". DWaterson 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to reporting things from reliable sources. Come up with something and we can debate it. Nssdfdsfds 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nss' objections are not founded in any policy or guideline. The fact that someone has been criticised is not in and of itself controversial. I'll work on some proposed wording. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to join this debate because I believe Nssdfdsfds is just a time waster. He has a very partial view on the subjects he contributes to, and seems to be "guarding" Paul Staines in a very peculiar way.. My views on Staines are well known (see http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ros_taylor/2007/01/post_944.html). I wish you well in your endeavours to sort this page out. --Lobster blogster 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, this discussion up to now has been pretty pointless as you've just said "this article sucks" and haven't made any attempt to improve it. If you've got something to say say it. Nssdfdsfds 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a small point to add here, that it was Nssdfdsfds that repeatedly undid revisions of mine both here on the discussion page, and on the article itself. --Lobster blogster 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did he pull that off? You see, your first edit was 2 March while the article has been protected since February. IrishGuy ^talk 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I didn't have an account before then, and editted using an IP address. --Lobster blogster 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that Nssdfdsfds has acted unreasonably in some of his deletions on this talk page - the reasonable discussions of the Guardian article. Seems to me Nssdfdsfds's actions match "Talk page vandalism" in WP:VANDAL in fact. He is entitled to argue that the Guardian article should not be mentioned in the article as it is "libel", but not delete all discussion of it on Talk. Rwendland 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussions are *not* reasonable. They are libellous against Mr. Staines. Therefore they have no place on wikipedia, whether it be talk page or anywhere else. Libel is just as libellous on 'talk' as it is on the main article. There's no discussion whatsoever that can be had about it, so just stop it and move on to productive things. Nssdfdsfds 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is libellous about publishing someone's date of birth (February 11, 1967) or middle name (de Laire.)? Nssdfdsfds has repeatedly removed both from the site. If he bothered to look up 192.com or 1837 online he would see that both those references are correct. There's no point me putting in a link to them as they are both subscription sites. Beaureparian

Eh, there's nothing libellous, I never said there was, I removed them because they are not in compliance wikipedia's policy of *sourcing* information: WP:RS. That's all. Anyone can make any statement they like, you have to be able to prove it by reference to a reliable source. Nssdfdsfds 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We seem doomed to an endless cycle here unless we retain notes on Talk along the lines of:

The Guardian published a news item about Staines on X, but later on Y published an apology for inaccurate content and retracted the article (or some other good and verifiable reason). The agreed consensus was not to mention this news item in the article.

Otherwise periodically a fresh editor will come along and mention the Guardian article, and we will go through another tedious discussion cycle. Purging all mention of the Guardian news item in Talk seems entirely the wrong approach to me. Mentioning the existence of the news item is not libel, and should not be deleted from Talk. (NB This is not to imply the Guardian news item has been retracted - I have not myself seen the claimed retraction.) Rwendland 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really such an issue. It mainly comes down to one user, Lobster Blogster, who has stated on his blog about his 'battle' to get this libel into wikipedia. BTW, the retraction or not is irrelevant. If you cannot prove a story to be true, it is libellous. The original articlem, from when Staines was a student and didn't have the legal knowledge/resources, has long since passed the statute of limitations and there's no need for The Guardian to retract it. Nssdfdsfds 19:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have my own doubts on the veracity of the story in the Guardian in 1986, but I doubt it is libellous to distribute it. However, Paul Staines' reaction to it is highly significant and should be in the article. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you republish a libel it is libellous. The 1986 story is too old, but any republication is libellous. Anyway, as I've said before the attitude that he should be damned for defending himself is rather unfair, as effectively any old smear against him then becomes notable - either by publishing it if he doesn't respond, or by publishing that he acted to repudiate it when he does. Nssdfdsfds 14:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

a) It has not been established that the article is libellous. It has been republished by several bloggers and remains up, with none of them reporting any legal contact from representatives of Paul Staines. b) Staines' blog makes libellous accusations against other people and he taunts them with his defiance and contempt of the libel laws. c) It clearly is worthy of note that his attitude to the libel laws changed by 180 degrees when the boot was on the other foot. The point of this article is not to be "fair" to the subject (is it fair to Lord Levy that his article reports accusations against him that he has been unable to respond to during an ongoing criminal investigation?), but that it is informative. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(a) I'm not sure what you're arguing any more. If the allegations are defamatory, and they clearly are, and you can't prove they're true, they're libellous. Simple as that. I don't get your 'none of them reporting legal contact'. A minute ago you wanted to attack him for making legal contact, now you're saying because he hasn't it might not be libel. Do make your mind up. (b) He's well aware of the law and has removed libellous content from his blog. He had the opportunity for instance to explicitly name Prescott's mistresses and instead just did Sun-style picture juxtapositionings hinting at it. (c) But he has responded to complaints and removed libellous content from his blog. It's absurd to say that he just allows any old libel to be published. I can't imagine what you're referring to on Levy, but as far as I can see on this issue at least, he's just recycled content from the BBC and Guardian, I don't know what you're talking about.

Your opinions are exactly that - your opinions, and not worthy of mention on the page. But as I've said, I think it would be easier if you just come up with a paragraph or so of what you want to add to the article, because this discussion is rather abstract, and thus ultimately rather pointless - content is what matters. Nssdfdsfds 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I'm in general against making a big meal of someone's foolish actions when they were 18 or 19. I simply want to take some basic facts along the lines of Staines studied at Humberside College of Higher Education, taking a degree course in business information studies. He became chairman of the college's branch of the Federation of Conservative Students., and keeping a note about the source and its limited use on Talk. I'm against purging the existance of the Guardian article. I'm open minded on the suggestion of mentioning Guido's recent fuss about the article, and would be interested in seeing a draft from Fys on this. Rwendland 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

He denies making any such actions. The article is quite clearly not a reliable source, as it has been removed from Lexus Nexis. The article already states his FCS involvement, the additional information about it being Humberside + business information studies is rather mundane and does not justify the use of the source. Nssdfdsfds 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It matters not one jot or iota whether Staines prints libels himself. The only issue that is important here is the protection of Wikipedia from actions, against which it is unable to defend itself legally or financially, in accordance with Wikipedia's stated policies. If people want to repeat libels elsewhere, that is of no interest to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip blog, and just because there is an article about a gossip blogger, does not mean the article should take the same tone. Cheers, DWaterson 18:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Public Interest?

While the above might sound reasonable and legally sound to law-makers, does not Wikipedia have the right to highlight/report information of public interest? And, given enough supporting information, the right to report general concerns?

According to the Random House Dictionary, Public interest is: 1. the welfare or well-being of the general public; commonwealth. 2. appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest.

Public Interest - Legal Definition: The people’s general welfare and well being; something in which the populace as a whole has a stake. Webster's New World Law Dictionary 80.44.107.18 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been a misunderstanding caused by picking a single comment out of a five-years-dead discussion. WP:BLP does not exist for the purpose of avoiding defamation actions; WP:BLP exists for the purpose of avoiding unreasonable harm to living persons. Material that is "appealing to the general populace" is not the same thing as material that is encyclopedic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed para

I propose this:

Staines' blog has attracted criticism from other bloggers over both its style and content. Tim Ireland launched a sustained campaign, including a pastiche 'Guido 2.0' blog, in January 2007: he accused Staines of deliberately making posts alleging scandal in vague terms, in order to encourage anonymous comments which were more specific, and also accused Staines of deleting critical comments. Ireland also discovered a newspaper article which implicated Staines in questionable (although not illegal) activity while at college. Staines insisted that the journalist who wrote the piece had retracted it; however, his attempt to restrict distribution of copies of the article (for which he was criticized for hypocrisy) was not entirely successful.

I've not added sources at this stage but I think everything there can be sourced. However for the benefit of the doubt I am not suggesting actually linking to a copy of the article. What do you think? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree that what Ireland says about Staines is notable. I think a better way to approach this would be to cite Staines' own blog. E.g., "Staines has been criticised by other bloggers for deleting comments to his blog." I don't think this is in dispute. That he encourages anonymous libels is a statement more controversial and needs a better source than just Tim Ireland's attack blog. In fact, Staines says [17] "If you want to libel someone - get your own blog." So, "Staines has been criticised by other bloggers for deleting comments. Staines is unapologetic about this telling those who 'complain that it is biased, get your own unbiased blog'."

I don't think, however, that it's reasonable to reference Ireland's attacks as a source, nor to suggest that Staines was involved in unspecified 'questionable activity'.Nssdfdsfds 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha Nss, what were you saying about the fact that a blog spat doesn't become notable unless the dead tree press report on it? See Pippa Crerar, "Guido v Manic in war of the Westminster blogs", in the Evening Standard on 13 February 2007 on page 11. And there are also external sources for criticism of blogs for running unsubstantiated smears - Nick Robinson did so in his piece on the BBC News online website. Peter Wilby in the New Statesman on 17 July 2006 did so in even more extreme terms; it's on page 25 if you want to check it. So you've no case, really you haven't. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find no reference to the Crerar piece at all online so I'm afraid your reference to it hasn't added anything for me (no reference even in any blogs to it, I should have thought that Ireland would be crowing about it), and if Nick Robinson said something on his blog, I have no idea which post it is. I located the Wilby piece, [18], I'd hardly say it's 'extreme', and if you want to cite it, go ahead, the editor of the New Statesman is certainly a good source, even where some shrieking blogger is not - if you have criticism from a reputable published magazine then why do you prefer instead to cite Ireland to say the same thing? Nssdfdsfds 12:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't have been looking very hard. Multiple independent sources, check. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Para with refs

Now with some added referencing.

Staines' blog has attracted criticism from other bloggers over both its style and content. Tim Ireland launched a sustained campaign, including a pastiche 'Guido 2.0' blog, in January 2007: <ref name="Evening Standard">Pippa Crerar, "[http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20070213/ai_n17224263 Guido v Manic in war of the Westminster blogs]", ''Evening Standard'', 13 February 2007, page 11</ref> he accused Staines of deliberately making posts alleging scandal in vague terms, in order to encourage anonymous comments which were more specific, and also accused Staines of deleting critical comments. <ref name="Ireland blog">[http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/01/guido_fawkes.asp Original criticism]</ref> Ireland also discovered a newspaper article which implicated Staines in questionable (although not illegal) activity while at college. <ref name="Evening Standard" /> Staines insisted that the journalist who wrote the piece had retracted it; however, his attempt to restrict distribution of copies of the article (for which he was criticized for hypocrisy) was not entirely successful.

Perhaps the New Statesman and Nick Robinson criticism could be inserted into the bit about Prescott. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've no problems with that. Some of the wording (e.g. "was not entirely successful") is a bit airy, but I suppose there's no way around that given the issues that have been raised in this thread. It's probably time to request the unprotection/downgrading to semi-protection of this article, now that User:Lobster blogster has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Cheers, DWaterson 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've said you want to report criticism of Staines but then followed it up with a paragraph entirely about Ireland's smears. His smears are useless for this article, although the ensuing 'blog wars' are something we can discuss (as per Evening Standard article). This should be better: Nssdfdsfds 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism (proposed text)

Staines' has been criticised for his approach to blogging. He has often criticised the media, and the BBC in particular, for being too cosy with the political establishment and for keeping internal secrets about political scandals. He said of allegations about John Prescott that "You can tell it is a big story because Nick Robinson is ignoring it". Robinson responded, accusing Staines of having a political agenda to damage the government, and reporting unsubstantiated and unverifiable allegations.

These criticisms were echoed by Peter Wilby, in The New Statesman, who suggested that Staines' claims to have made the news on Prescott were unfounded, as the story had previously been covered in The Times, and that Staines' contribution to the debate was persistent implications of scandal without supporting evidence.

How bizarre. You started off until a few days ago saying that the Guardian piece was libellous and could not even be mentioned here, and now you go and repeat the libel! Very odd. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't then aware of the Evening Standard article that you pointed to. I assume if the Standard printed it, it must be ok. I'm not entirely sure of the legality of all of this though - you're probably right that it would be a good idea to be careful. Probably it's best not to mention it at all without being 100% sure of the legality of it. So in that case, it would be better not to include that last paragraph starting "In February 2007". Nssdfdsfds 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bit confused myself too, TBH... DWaterson 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If Staines has been criticised by the media, and the BBC in particular, for being too cosy with the political establishment and for keeping internal secrets about [Tory] political scandal, it is unlikely to be without just reason. Notice the key words, "and the BBC in particular". Viewing his web site, it could be said that Paul Staines is not overly keen on the BBC. 80.44.107.18 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Libel Law

Well, I've had a look at this. [19] and this [20] and it's clear that saying that you are reporting the words of others is not a defence to libel. The Standard article must therefore be libellous, and so I don't see that we should link to it. Make sense? Nssdfdsfds 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It has still not yet been established that the Guardian piece is libellous, and I'm certain the Standard piece isn't. You seem to be developing an advanced and acute case of libel paranoia and should really report for treatment before it gets worse. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Anything is libellous if it damages somebody's reputation and you cannot prove it to be true. The allegations in The Guardian clearly are damaging to Mr. Staines' reputation, and cannot be proven to be true. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Secondly, the links provided clearly say that reporting libellous statements from somebody else is no defence against libel. Reporting a suggestion that Mr. Staines was linked to extremists is clearly damaging to Mr. Staines' reputation. It seems quite plain to me. Paranoia is what you might call it, but I see no reason to risk things over unprovable allegations from 1986. Nssdfdsfds 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Prima fasce what Nssdfsfds says is correct, but I think he is overlooking important case law such as Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 and Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe 2006. --Dr Finkbottle 08:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merely 'damaging somebody's reputation' is not enough. A libel must bring someone into (I forget the exact phrase) scandal, ridicule and contempt. No libel action has been brought over the Guardian piece nor over anything which has repeated it, and I don't think the level of accusations in the piece really are substantially libellous. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, we're not here to test that out. Yes, a jury might decide that the allegations against Mr. Staines would not expose him to scandal, ridicule and contempt, but it's not something that we're in a position to test, unless of course you have Messers Carter-Ruck and Co. on retainer. The fact is there is a substantial whiff of libel around this issue, and it's not prudent to expose wikipedia to it, over something which really doesn't add much to the article. There is plenty else to communicate to give a good impression of what Paul Staines is like without needing to get into this. Nssdfdsfds 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What it's about is you're just trying to spray around the suspicion of libel because you don't want the article to include anything that might make people think less of its subject. That's why you've had to adopt such an extreme interpretation. However, it does not get around WP:NPOV. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an absurd allegation. I added in the section "Criticism of the Guido Fawkes blog". I wouldn't have done that if I was so bothered about making people think less of him.

Secondly, this is not an 'extreme interpretation'. The fact is, he sent out multiple libel takedown notices, to various bloggers, and to Lexus Nexis, so there is clearly at least a suggestion of libel. Your argument is that the allegations are not libellous because they would not expose him to scandal, ridicule and contempt. Yet the question of whether they would "expose him to scandal, ridicule and contempt" is one that can only be decided by a libel jury. Clearly Mr. Staines thinks it does. The only way to decide would be in a court. That's a fact. Whether it is libellous could only be determined by the subjective opinion of a jury. This is not an appropriate matter to be determined on a wikipedia talk page - you can't get around WP:BLP.

Thirdly, 20-year-old allegations that are quite probably untrue are not a fair thing to bring up against him. If you want to use the article to attack him, do so responsibly. Nssdfdsfds 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Nssdfdsfds", who do you think you are? For one look at your wording and it is clear that all your support for Paul Stains goes way beyond any call-of-duty. As for attacking someone "responsibly", no one but a (his?) legal team would use such wording. From the nature of comments made, it might be reasonable to call you something of a legal bully-boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.107.18 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh really?

Staines is a right-wing libertarian who described in a 2000 publication how he became a libertarian in 1980 after reading Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, from Plato To Marx. He joined the Young Conservatives "because they were the only people around who were anti-Socialist or at least anti-Soviet", and at this time began calling himself Delaire-Staines, the name shortened by his father to Staines in the 1960s.

What does Staines himself have to say about this? If this reference - [21] - is to be believed, Staines was approximately 10 years old in 1980. Even the smartest 10-year-olds are not that clued up (and, I would hope, not that pretentious).

And since then: hedge fund manager, bull runner, Atari game champion, acid house party organiser (not necessarily in that order)? It all just seems too fanciful to be true, and some of the references (a druggy book published 10 years ago?) are dubious at best.

Given that Guido's blog (assuming Staines is really the man behind that? Do we really know for sure?) has boasted a completely fictional "Peter Hitchens" who isn't the real Peter Hitchens [22], I am led to wonder just how much of the biographical data provided here is real and how much was just made up by somebody as a joke. 217.155.20.163 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has claimed that he was born 11th February 1967.[23] That would make him 13 when he read that book (I imagine the age on the yahoo profile has just not been updated since he originally posted it). That seems a fairly common sort of age to acquire political awareness. Secondly, what Staines himself has to say about this, I suggest you check the References: Staines himself said that - he's the man who wrote the "2000 publication". The references to hedge fund manager and bull runner are conspicuously well sourced. The Atari game champion is not only referenced by a published book, but mentioned by someone who is extremely likely to be Staines himself, [24] "Disclosure:

I was the UK Atari Asteroids Champion circa 1983 (am very proud owner of medal and T-shirt).

I came 9th in the World Championships in Washington.

I now trade derivatives online for a living. Aim, Firel, BUY/SELL. Same game different scoring system.

Incidentally I am looking to hire someone. Proof of Elite Video Gaming skills will be sought on the resume.

Posted by Paul Staines at April 28, 2003 05:11 PM

The acid house organising, is supported by TWO published books. The other is Generation Ecstasy : Into the World of Techno and Rave Culture by Simon Reynolds (available on Amazon for 'search inside').

The fictional Peter Hitchens is not Mr. Staines, but somebody that posts, heavily, in the comments to his blog. You might as well argue that The Guardian is unreliable because there are anonymous nutters posting on The Guardian's blog.

Finally, according to the reference, "Staines doesn’t like to talk about his background, but acknowledges his Wikipedia entry is fairly accurate.".

So all in all, this article is solidly referenced - it's really impossible to make anything up as a joke, because it's all supported by published books, Mr. Staines' own statements, and other reliable sources. Nssdfdsfds 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at all the edits made tonight by the man himself! Laughably vain. ZephyrAnycon 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? Amusing suggestion, several miles wide of the mark though. Nssdfdsfds 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The length of this entire article is ludicrous. Staines is a bloke with a computer who's had a couple of interesting scoops. His prominence in the UK blogosphere probably merits a short entry in Wikipedia, but not this rambling, self-aggrandising nonsense.

I would like to endorse the above comment. The sheer length and detail of this article completely contradicts Wikipedia's notability criteria and appears to be an example of vanity publishing on someone's part. It also alludes to a baseless and scurrilous rumour about Gordon Brown which was concocted by sock puppets on the Guido Fawkes blog as a means of damaging him. Wikipedia should not be giving house room to this sort of thing. Beaureparian 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Staines clearly passes the notability criteria set out in WP:BIO. I have reverted your edits to the "rocking horse" section (and partly rewritten it), due to your use of unsourced claims about "sock puppets" and biased and speculative remarks such as "...probably a reflection of the desperation of the Conservative blogosphere to find means of attacking a politician who was demonstrably head and shoulders above their own leader, David Cameron." Cheers, DWaterson 11:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Have you lot of obssesives really wasted all this time arguing about this simple fact? I am an Irish citizen with an Irish passport. --Pds2012 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Staines's nationality is clearly a matter of confusion, as he has variously implied that he is, or at least considers himself, to be Irish, which is what I had tried to capture prior to this revision. Yet the article presently states that he was born in the UK; do we have any references to suggest that he is naturalised Irish or holds dual nationality? As otherwise it seems correct to describe him as British if that was his place of birth. DWaterson 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See here: http://www.order-order.com/2007/09/citizens-consultants.html his meaning is quite clear that he is Irish not British--91.106.60.57 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He was born Paul de Laire Staines in England (Ealing) in February 1967 but is of Irish descent. The unusual middle name is an Irish family name, pronounced de-leery as in the pronunciation of Dun Laoghaire. Beaureparian 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Last sentence is nonsense. --Pds2012 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Staines is the friend of a friend. I can confirm that he was born in London. Valenciano 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Firend of a friend sounds like a bit of private research to me, and so violates the editting policy. The best reference we have is the link above, so I have reverted an edit which contradicts this.--91.104.6.253 19:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed which is why I haven't edited the article to say that. I don't need to as we already have a source in the article to say that he was born and raised in London [25] While he clearly is an Irish citizen he also is obviously English [26] and a British citizen [27] Add his past reference to Central London residency [28] and his focus in his blog on British issues, there's no reason to describe him as an Irish blogger. Hence your edit is reverted. Valenciano 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a very poor understanding of electoral law in the UK. Irish citizens are allowed to vote in UK elections. However British subjects are not allowed to vote in Irish elections, yet in one of you references he specifically said he voted for the Progressive Democrats. I don't think the evidence supports your assertions, and so I have reverted your edit.--91.104.26.249 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No wait, he says his vote is with the PDs "in principle if not in practice", which implies he does not have voting rights in Ireland. DWaterson 21:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

None of that alters the fact that we have explicit references to the fact that he is born in London, was living there relatively recently and mainly blogs on British political issues. Against that we have a few hazy references to Irish citizenship.Valenciano 05:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference where he says he is a member of the Progressive Democrats [29]. Revert button duly hit.--91.106.50.205 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt that the PDs restrict their membership to Irish citizens. Hell even a bunch of xenophobes like the BNP allow certain foreigners to join. Do you have a reference to say that membership of the PDs is restricted to Irish citizens or Irish residents? If not then the point about his membership is utterly irrelevant. I do feel here that you are spectacularly missing the point in any case. No one has disputed that Staines holds dual nationality, although it would be nice to see a source for this. Since he was born in England and blogs about British political issues it is misleading, or more to the point, incredibly idiotic to describe him as "an Irish political blogger." I just had a look at the blog and six of the first seven news items were about British issues. Valenciano 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree - given the current evidence, English appears to be the most accurate description. Or, how about my original suggestion, "English of Irish descent", or something like that :-) DWaterson 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy enough with any alternative wording. We could for example leave the question of his nationality and identity out of the lead altogether and mention later that he was born in England but holds dual citizenship. His nationality is not really relevant to his notability anyway. What is relevant for readers not familiar with the subject is that his blog focuses on British politics. Valenciano 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How about removing material which is not accurately sourced? That way you could end up with a quality article.--91.106.51.163 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I enquired after the Progressive Democrats if foreign nationals were allowed to join, and I got the following reply:

Good Morning,

Thank You for your enquiry, in relation to Party membership. The governing rules of the party only allow for Irish citizens or persons who are resident in Ireland to join the Party as the membership is by your electoral constituency. Please keep up to date with Party news through our website and if you have further queries the email address you may use is: info@progressivedemocrats.ie The Party is also a member of the European Liberal Alliance group at EU level and their website is www.eldr.org

Regards Administration Office Team --91.106.50.180 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See above comments. Specifically >>No one has disputed that Staines holds dual nationality. Since he was born in England and blogs about British political issues it is misleading, or more to the point, incredibly idiotic to describe him as "an Irish political blogger."<< So rather than wasting your own time trying to prove that water is wet why not address the more substantive points i.e. his birthplace being in England and his blog being about British political issues. By the way, as far as sources go, private e-mails are no more acceptable than the friend of a friend. Valenciano 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a private correspondence, it's a statement of there policy according to a general enquiry. If you don't like it try looking here [30] and you will find you can only join if you have an Irish address.--91.106.50.180 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Already looked there, can't see anything that says that British citizens with dual nationality are ineligible for membership. We already have a source to say that he was born in England and we have his blog which focuses on British issues. By the way I've just tried the PD membership thing, my 'application' went through just fine with a foreign address. Valenciano 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, I've already suggested a compromise - that we remove mention of his nationality from the lead altogether as it's irrelevant to his notability. We could put his dual nationality later, appropriately sourced. Valenciano 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop all material which doesn't have proper references. I disagree with making up material where there are gaps.--91.106.50.180 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Independent says he lives in Ireland [31], he's a member of an Irish political party, and he says he is a citizen of a free republic. With apologies to the Irish, and pigs, if it looks like a pig, smells like a pig and goes "oink", it's a pig. Revert duly hit. Please don't revert again unless you can actually find a reference that says he's English, you just make the page look silly.--91.106.41.201 18:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have two references on the main page to say he was born in London plus two above saying that he is a British citizen and was resident in London until recently. You really don't get the dual citizenship idea do you? Anyway I'm amending the page to remove references to his nationality in the lead. Valenciano 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, a certain gentleman born in Dublin remarked that, "being born in a stable does not make one a horse" and referred to himself as English. Determination of nationality can be quite a varied subject. Many countries will not permit you their nationality even if you were born there, unless your parents were also born there, for example, Germany. In the case of Ireland, one can be born in the UK and get Irish citizenship quite easily. (People from Northern Ireland do this quite regularly, while concomitantly crying on about how crap "the South" is.) A person with a single Irish born grandparent can claim Irish citizenship.

In the case of British citizenship (or subjection :)) there are many varied rules. The Irish can vote there because the British still can't bring themselves to admit that the Irish really wanted to get out of the UK (they probably think the Afghans like them too).But there are various levels of citizenship and being a subject depends upon which coconut colony one was born in.

Now, given that Staines was a Tory, that might imply he thinks it is therefore an acceptable pastime to murder and generally harass Irish people and that therefore makes him British. However, the Irish are quite fond of doing that to each other, so he could just as easily be Irish, especially if he is a PD.

I hope all of that clarifies things.

Slán 194.46.245.93 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an unambiguous reference to Staines being Irish here [32] so I have amended the article accordingly.--91.104.46.22 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of British citizens who would describe themselves as Irish.Hobson (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (addition) as Staines does in the reference cited, where he uses the phrase "us Irish".Hobson (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Here [33] he says he is "an Irish Citizen", and emphasises he is not British, thereby avoiding in the future the need to carry the proposed UK ID card.--91.104.29.139 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep - good find.Hobson (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah good, that's fairly decisive. I've updated the ref to reflect. DWaterson (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have read all the above and changed the ambiguous [[Irish]] link to [[Irish people|Irish]] which seems more appropriate than [[Ireland|Irish]] in this case. Gil Gamesh (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This article reads like trite PR blurb, not as an impartial overview of a political blogger of no significance outside the Westminster village. Do we really need to learn of his computer gaming credentials?90.194.161.59 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)MHA

Global Growth Org NGO

It was a pro-free trade website. Big deal --Pds2012 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All instances of Global Growth Org NGO have disappeared of the net, and the domain name is up for sale. Should we drop the references to this bogus organisation in the Politics section, or leave it up as an example of one of Staines' fantasy schemes? I did find that something called Global Growth Org [34] still exists with links back to the absent NGO, and a fax number that matches the Guy Fawkes blog. It's quite a sad looking page really.--91.104.27.46 (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Financial career

My career in finance is longer and wider than has been found by Googling fragments of websites that still seem to persist on the web. I'm not going to upload my CV but these comments below demonstrate malice and ignorance in equal measure. A simple check of historical company records in the Bahamas, Nevis etc would confirm the facts.--Pds2012 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Two out of the three references we have for Staines' financial career appear to be bogus. Mondial Global Investors exists only as a single web page with three missing photos, and a Yahoo members page. It seems strange that no other company has ever done business with them, or that anyone else has ever mentioned Mondial Global Investors. The Eurodare hedge fund exists only in a single self published PDF. Don't these things get quoted in stock exchanges and newspapers if they really exist? Yasuda is ok because a quick google can find Staines mentioned as a broker. I'd have editted the Financial career section here myself, but I think leaving them is a good reminder of what a clown we are describing here.--91.104.27.46 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you know anything about hedge funds, but they are forbidden by law from advertising, and are not allowed to deal with the general public. I have visited a couple of hedge funds, and they don't have any trace on the internet, but despite this are quite conspicuously making vast sums of money. So no, hedge funds are not quoted on stock exchanges or in newspapers. And these are London funds, the reference says "Paul Staines is a partner in Dare Capital Partners with responsibility for structured

derivative products and principal trader for the EuroDare hedge fund, an off-shore derivatives orientated fund focused on European capital markets." Why would an offshore hedge fund have a web page? 147.114.226.174 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The EuroDare fund claim can be sourced to the very same material which you say is libellous. It can't possibly be libellous because staines would have taken action to have it removed by now. It carries a Paul Staines copyright. He boasts about lying, forges documents and websites. If you can substantiate your claims about hedge funds, could you provide a reference?--91.104.24.22 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The libellous material is that relating to Humberside University. Not Staines' publications about libertarians. Your obfuscation is very tiresome.

It is well-established that Staines worked in finance, and you do not have any basis for questioning it. Mondial Global Investors for instance has a credit report online. [35] Where a person worked is not considered a controversial piece of data, and self-published sources are perfectly reliable for this. I'm sure your fantasy of him having made up numerous places of work (despite evidence that he did work there), is pleasing to you in your trolling, but for everyone else it's tiresome. 147.114.226.174 (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mondial Global Investors page [36] is so amateurish is amazing anyone seeks to defend it. If you check the document properties via page source you can see it was authored by Staines whilst working at a Bloomberg workstation. It seems Mondial Global Investors was a fiction knocked up whilst he worked for someone else, or was he perhaps moonlighting?--91.104.46.22 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to tory HQ

You guys are really crazy. Any body could do it by emailing DailyLobby@conservatives.com or SundayLobby@conservatives. It was a distribution list now blocked after I did it. --Pds2012 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A blog on the daily telepagraph is suggesting he may be an employee or connected directly with the tory party. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/jan08/whoisguidoworkingfor.htm This was also reported on in the daily mirror. http://maguire.mirror.co.uk/2008/01/has-guided-fawkes-outed-himsel.html#comments

This is as a legal disclaimer used by tory HQ was found on an e-mail he sent out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.186.241 (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

I can't understand why there are rather feeble mentions of an Asteriod game competition and being hit by a bull, but there is no mention of Staines' bankruptcy in 2003 [37]. Surely this has far greater relevance to Staines' career and blogging activities?--91.104.37.77 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy has now been added to the biog. Other matters discussed during the court cases that might be of interest (regarding for instance PS's 'Irishness') will be added as we go back over the papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.252.83 (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Marr/Alice Staines

There is a discussion over on the Andrew Marr page about the Alice Miles situation. If it can't be on that article, why can it be on this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didshe (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hague and BLP

Nobody has suggested this article should not record the fact that the Guido Fawkes website made allegations about William Hague. There has been no attempt to delete that information. The issue causing some debate is whether the article should state clearly that the claims were false. Note that simply referring to claims about a living person without explaining whether those claims were true is not, in fact, neutral wording. To do this would leave open the possibility that they were actually true. Unless there is a reliable source which can be cited to show William Hague was involved in a homosexual relationship with his special advisor, any reference to claims that he was involved in such an affair should make it very clear that those claims are untrue.Hobson (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We should neutrally make no comment on the allegation at all, including comments on its truth or falsehood. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing neutral about reporting a potentially damaging and untrue statement about a living person without reporting whether or not the statement was true.Hobson (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality (at risk of sounding like Angus Deayton) is to report it clearly as an allegation, not as a statement of fact. We cannot term an allegation as either true or false, because we don't know whether it is or not (which would be WP:OR anyway, unless third-party sourced).

Anyway, I doubt either of us are likely to shift our position - I'd welcome some comment from others on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is why I point out that it is a BLP issue. I do not know whether William Hague cheated on his wife with a secret gay lover and then lied about it any more than I know whether he has sex with farm animals. However, he denies ever having had sex with a man. There is no reliable source suggesting that he did. If this was an article about whether there is life on other planets, Wikipedia could happily leave readers with the impression that there might be or there might not be, and nobody really knows. When we are writing about a living person and damaging suggestions that have been made about them, Wikipedia cannot leave readers with the impression that they might possibly be true unless there is some reliable authoritative source to suggest that they might possibly be true.Hobson (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I have raised this at WP:BLP/N#Paul_Staines so maybe someone will offer an outside opinion.Hobson (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

By saying it is false, we are taking sides, all we do is report that he made the allegation - nothing more, nothing less. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought improper was the expression not homosexual. I would also include, hagues denial, Hague said the claims were "utterly false" Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The only claim actually made was that Hague and Myers shared a hotel room. That is not contested. --Pds2012 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Staine's blog and BLPs

Please note that Staines' blog/website cannot be used a source for information about any living person except Staines himself. See these discussions [38] [39] I have just removed several chunks of texts about living people which was unsourced or sourced to the blog only. --Slp1 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Harry Cole

Would it not be useful to mention the increasing role of Harry Cole in the blog? Jaffachief (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense --Pds2012 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Splitting

Suggest splitting the blog off to an article, esp given that it is mostly written by Harry Cole now TreveX^talk 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Have put in split template on relevant section. Splitting in 3... 2... 1... Roienones (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Behaving badly in London

I added a line in the "controversies and criticism" section about his recent behaviour as documented at http://www.adambienkov.com/2012/03/camerawoman-confronts-guido-fawkes.html and am wondering why it has been removed. Other than to remove criticism of Paul, what motivation would anyone have to remove this, it seems quite relevant and important. (75.119.224.120 (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC))

It hasn't been removed. It probably will be soon though. If you used a <ref> rather than an inline URL, it might last longer. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the blog the only source for this? Can't see how it meets WP:BLP. JASpencer (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm not very experienced in the embedding thing and I know I have not presented it in the perfect way. Perhaps you could assist by correcting, rather than removing. Regarding the policy on BLP, I see no issue, for it is indeed accurate and quite clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.224.120 (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Other sources also show the video, name Paul Stains (AKA "Guido") and include tweets from Mr Stains - see http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/14/guido-fawkes-attacks-journalists-at-ken-event/ . See also http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1002/loony_left_red_ken_livingstone_vs_guido_edition for rebuttal, comments about incident from Ken Livingstone campaign team: https://twitter.com/#!/ken4london/status/179892568056799232 , I could go on, but of course a quick google search and you can see for yourself multiple sources discussing and debating the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.224.120 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationality (again)

I think it's safe to assume that Mr Stains has both Irish and British nationality but describing him as an "English-born Irish right-wing political blogger" implies that he is English blogs on Irish affairs, which he doesn't. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record yet again, I am an Irish citizen with an Irish passport. --Paul (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt I should definitively say that I am entitled to hold Irish, Indian and British passports. I elect to hold only an Irish passport. --Paul (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether the subject 'holds' a current British passport is completely irrelevant to whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom. The subject was born in the UK and is a UK citizen. If the subject has not applied to renounce his UK citizenship with the Home Office - *and* had the Home Office accept the application - he is still a UK citizen. As a UK citizen he is entitled to renew his UK passport at any time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.36.197.60 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is pretty much the point. Lots of people have no passports at all but this does not mean that they are stateless. That Stains elect to only have an Irish passport doesn't mean that he is only an Irish citizen. If you are entitled to Irish, British and Indian passports means that you are an Irish citizen, a British citizen and an Indian citizen.

In the meantime: on Wikipedia "Ireland" is an article about the island, while "Republic of Ireland" is about the sovereign state of the same name. You cannot be a citizen of an island which is why it should be pipe-linked [[Republic of Ireland|Irish]]. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Aggressive self promotion

Staines has been aggressively puffing up his own wikipedia entry, and when people try to revert these absurd, POV changes he accuses them of vandalism.

Can we get someone in to stop him doing this? GrampaScience (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because the MessageSpace website lists its client does not mean that the clients are relevant to Mr Staines. This is blatantly becoming a promotional article. 87.194.83.162 (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC) ual. Following guidance from wikipedia editors have removed all references to clients, which incidentally were factual --Paul (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhap it might be useful to consider a resolution (passed in April 2009) stating the Foundation's position regarding Biographies of Living Persons.

"Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects. Generally, the Wikimedia community protects the projects well against this common problem by deleting or improving hagiographies."

In short, is that not the same as saying, aggressive self promotion is not welcome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.61.112 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hagiography

a book about someone's life that makes it seem better than it really is or was

a biography that praises someone too much. 2.96.98.107 (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Open Confirmation of Self Editing

A post on the website 'Liberal Conspiracy' [40] and the 'Zelo Street blog' [41] apparently questioned whether Staines had been self editing this article; he confirmed via his own twitter feed that he had indeed been self-editing. [42].

Whats more concerning here is the suggestion that he had been invited by 'editors' to self-edit?! Anyone know of a change in wiki policy?! Zaq12wsx (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

nb on closer inspection as per WP:AUTO [43] the practise is discouraged but not against the rules per se. To his credit there hasn't been any apparent attempt to hide edits via sock puppets. Zaq12wsx (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeats from above "Comment from subject"

"After untold years of not touching this have finally relented and begun correcting falsehoods and trying to balance some of the content. Also updating it to reflect developments since it was first assembled. It should be borne in mind that by and large this article has been written by people who dislike me to an almost obsessive degree. For example out of hundreds of media appearances by me over the years this article focuses in a hugely unbalanced way on a few that have been negative. Will try to link facts to citations."

Am doing it under my named and sticking to facts - as advised by Wikipedia. Should point out that over the years when I have complained to Wikipedia editors about for example being accused of being a convicted paedophile at the extreme end and the slanted coverage by obsessives they have exhorted me to edit the entry myself. I intend to ensure that this entry no longer contains falsehoods about me, my family or my business interests. I am aware that I am a controversial figure for some people but see no reason why this site should not attempt to remain neutral and factually accurate. That is not aggressive self-promotion, I would be far happier if this entry did not exist at all. --Paul (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Paul, but you are not the best judge of an NPOV article. You are by definition biased. Truthyness2 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst this is fine and we encourage people to correct articles that are inaccurate be aware of wiki's law of unintended consequences WP:LUC. I say this because i cross referenced the comments you made above to Dwaterson with the comment you left on his page [44]. If contributors are able to reference additions to the article that you may find objectionable they are free to do so. Wikipedia uses the concept of consensus WP:CONS not balance, the way conflict is resolved around contentious issues is by seeking some form of compromise; that may mean re-writing an article in a manner that all parties agree with or it may mean giving a paragraph to each (properly referenced) concern. What wiki doesn't seek to do however is achieve 'balance' by including 'positive' events to counteract the 'negative' events. Breaching editing policies to present yourself in a favourable light just results in a revocation of editing access WP:BLOCK. Goodluck and remember you can contribute to articles other than your own! :) Zaq12wsx (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It'd also be strongly advisable to read your talk page Paul, you've already got two warnings from an administrator...Zaq12wsx (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Pds2012

It appears that User:Pds2012, who edited this talk page in January 2012, may also be Staines. (No article edits, no wrong-doing implied) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I did use that and it is clearly me I just forgot the username password combo, some of us do not want to spend our time being wiki editors. --90.45.91.202 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC) <<-- is me just forgot to login --Paul (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)--Paul (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OPEN LETTER

Dear Wikipedia,

I am so sick and tired of people trying to use the authority of this site to take a pop at me.

Today various article editors repeatedly claimed that I had knocked over a woman, I repeatedly removed that claim. In exasperation I said that if it was repeated I would have no option but to sue for defamation. I was then told threatening to sue would lead to me being blocked from using Wikipedia. It is a lie frequently repeated on here, what the hell am I supposed to do?

Sort it out and make this more neutral.

regards,

--Paul (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a little rich. For many fair-minded people must be sick and tired of the right-wing using the authority of their web-sites to attack the disabled, the unemployed and anyone left wing. Ok, instead of threatening to sue - just do it. Or might that highlight a few issues? 80.44.234.214 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

Without prejudice to any users, their opinions, their edits to the article, or the verifiability of the content, I have reverted the content in good faith to what I believe to be far enough back for a stable version. To request a change to it, or a revert to a later stable version, add {{edit protected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung, you've actually gone back to an older edit that has undone a lot of what we'd achieved (in terms of neutrality) earlier this evening. For example, Paul Staines is not the only founder of MessageSpace (one other person involved actually stood for office twice), and there is no reason to showcase the list of clients from his company's website on this page. A great number of the references are actually his own websites, or websites under his control. Similarly many of the other edits were quite neutral. I would propose going back to http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Paul_Staines&oldid=507878201

Truthyness2 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the special nature of this/these issue(s), I prefer for other admins to weigh in before any decisions are made to change the current status of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem removing the mentions of major campaigns involving MessageSpace or changing my role more precisely from "founder" to "co-founder". I do wonder why Truthyness2 is so keen to put me in a negative light at any opportunity and question this person's neutrality. This person is newly registered, anonymous and seems to have taken an interest in ONLY my Wikipedia entry. I think this person and IP address should be prevented from editing my entry. --Paul (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The revision User:Truthyness2 is asking to revert back to contains a claim sourced to http://www.adambienkov.com/ which is a blog, this is not an acceptable source per WP:BLPSPS so I do not consider it appropriate to revert back to this version. January (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree - the revision I've asked does repeat the claim made on the blog, it only contains the fact (proven with the YouTube video) of Staines making a nuisance and shouting obsceneties in a public place. Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_D5TnH_DUQ - there is no reference to Staines knocking down a camerawoman apart from her OWN comments in the video (25 seconds onwards). Either way I'm happy to abide by other Wikipedia admins, but please let it be known that Paul Staines does manipulate opinions for a living via his blog/website, and is trying to white-wash this Wikipedia entry. Truthyness2 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the material about the obscenities, not the camerawoman. Self-published blogs are not acceptable sources in an article on a living person (other than within the limited exception set out in WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source), neither is a Youtube video by the blogger since this is also self-published. January (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Having a look at this it seems that Truthyness is indeed a clear case of a Single Purpose Account, with suspiciously good Wikipedia editing skills and appeals to policy (if skewed - for example reliance on blogs and ignoring the [[WP:BLP|BLP pollicty). I think that a good idea would be to run a sock puppet check to see if they are attached to a current or previous Wikipedia editor. This does seem to be the MO of User:David r from Meth Productions. 15:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the link is User talk:David r from meth productions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the claim Truthyness2 wishes to insert should not be added. It's a BLP issue, and a contentious claim like 'calling a woman a cunt' needs a better source than a self-published blog and YouTube video.

I would also say that this edit by User:Mollskman should be repeated:[45] He removed unsourced contentious material about Staines' drug use, including a lengthy unsourced quote. That content does not belong in the article, and Kudpung's reversion mistakenly restored it. Robofish (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick note, I've tackled one or two contentious BLPs in my time, raising them to GA, and would be happy to lend a hand here, if needed. I'll point out from the start that I'm a regular reader of Guido's blog. Parrot of Doom 12:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please could an admin repeat this edit, removing two contentious unsourced paragraphs:[46] I proposed this above and there weren't any objections; if anyone thinks this content is worth keeping, please provide a source for it. Robofish (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Request by Robofish  Done, request by Truthyness2  Not done due to the requested revision containing material sourced to a blog. January (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done it does not appear that there is consensus at this time to add the categories. Please discuss this more and then when there is a consensus to add the categories ask again. GB fan 17:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As his Irish citizenship is properly referenced in the article, I wonder if an Admin could add the following cats? Irish bloggers, Irish libertarians, Irish republicans. Ta. Mais oui! (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

An Irish republican is someone who would sympathise with Sein Fein's world view. The others all imply some involvement in Irish affairs which Mr Stains evidently lacks. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect citation syntax

Add |title=Paul Staines witness statement transcripts (or something similar) to {{cite web|url=http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=paul-staines|publisher=Leveson Inquiry|accessdate=9 August 2012}} (under #Leveson Inquiry). benzband (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I see no issue with this minor citation improvement, although the reference itself doesn't appear to be sourcing anything and probably shouldn't be there... Yunshui 雲‍水 09:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, citations without titles appear in Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. Thanks! benzband (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.serendipity.li/wod/staines.html

  Triggered by \bserendipity\.li\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian?

The article states, "Staines is a libertarian", but this seems to be unreliable POV. He apparently *was* a libertarian at some point, but the contents of his "Guido Fawkes" blog is a torrent of right wing rabble rousing populism with little "libertarian" content, and his stock in trade of attacking the private lives of others- often with rumour and innuendo- is not consistent with libertarian values regarding the rights of the individual to live their life free of coercion. He has campaigned loudly in favour of the death penalty. This sort of yellow journalism makes him more of a Poundstretcher version of WT Stead, or William Randolph Hearst. I admit to an axe to grind here as I am a libertarian myself, and it is unfair for a major website like Wikipedia to be associating the views propounded by Staines as part of that philosophy.

Oswald Mosley was once a socialist, and then not. People change their political values; Staines's appear to have drifted around the spectrum during his life, until they have settled on "anything that will get my fat little face 30 seconds of publicity". "Is" a libertarian should at least be changed to "was", or the sentence removed entirely and replaced with something like "Paul Dacre wannabee".82.71.30.178 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes... when a reliable source (or a balance of reliable sources) can be found that says so. We don't decide what Staines is, based on your (or my) opinion of the contents of his blog. Just as with Mosley - we reflect what the balance of reliable sources say about him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On a separate point, and less relevant according to what I just said; in most political discourse in English (which is largely written from a USA point of view), "libertarian" means something much more right-wing than you might be happy with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes blog, as distinct from Paul Staines

Hi. It seems to me that both Paul Staines and his blog are notable in their own right. The blog is no longer coterminous with Staines, since it is also written by Alex Wickham and Harry Cole (who, incidentally, has his own page) - and possibly others(?). It would surely be a much more satisfactory position for there to be a page for the blog itself, instead of taking up a large chunk of Staines' page just to cover the blog. Precedents for this exist in the case of Tim Montgomerie being distinct from ConservativeHome and Sunny Hundal from Liberal Conspiracy. JamKaftan (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fallacies of the "Criticism and controversy" section

This section starts out with the following ad hominem tu quoque typical of leftist political polemic: "Staines has been criticised for his approach to blogging. He often criticises the mainstream media, claiming that it is too close to the political establishment (undercut by the fact he was the only media man in attendance at a Conservative party lobbying ball[51]), and that it also keeps internal secrets about political scandals from the public. When allegations about John Prescott's private life appeared, Staines wrote that "You can tell it is a big story because Nick Robinson is ignoring it". Robinson responded via his own blog,[52] accusing Staines of having a political agenda to damage the government." A bit over the top? --80.212.248.189 (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201111153/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2087460.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2087460.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Paul Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921222426/http://www.messagespace.co.uk/2012/russian-embassy-using-social-media-to-explain-foreign-policy/ to http://www.messagespace.co.uk/2012/russian-embassy-using-social-media-to-explain-foreign-policy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160218102918/http://www.solondon.co.uk/Article.aspx?kArticle=123&zone=33 to http://www.solondon.co.uk/Article.aspx?kArticle=123&zone=33
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.order-order.com/2008/01/outed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514143145/http://www.order-order.com/2006/02/hughes-its-straight-serious-choice.html to http://www.order-order.com/2006/02/hughes-its-straight-serious-choice.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108012644/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3129886.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3129886.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002043/http://www.order-order.com/2006/06/hung-parliament-lds-should-learn-from.html to http://www.order-order.com/2006/06/hung-parliament-lds-should-learn-from.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.libertarian.co.uk/freelife/fl037.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427191541/http://www.order-order.com/2007/02/so-much-for-anonymity.html to http://www.order-order.com/2007/02/so-much-for-anonymity.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002034/http://www.order-order.com/2006/04/sheikh-it-up-baby.html to http://www.order-order.com/2006/04/sheikh-it-up-baby.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819193115/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/110706/political_blogs_john_prescott to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/110706/political_blogs_john_prescott
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430065433/http://www.order-order.com/2007/02/siths-allies-fightback_15.html to http://www.order-order.com/2007/02/siths-allies-fightback_15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001907/http://www.order-order.com/2006/07/so-rosie-where-is-guidos-writ.html to http://www.order-order.com/2006/07/so-rosie-where-is-guidos-writ.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401162323/http://www.libertarian.co.uk/archive/photorec/1987g/1987g.htm to http://www.libertarian.co.uk/archive/photorec/1987g/1987g.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621045234/http://weblogs.hitwise.com/heather-hopkins/2006/07/guido_fawkes_fair_and_balanced.html to http://weblogs.hitwise.com/heather-hopkins/2006/07/guido_fawkes_fair_and_balanced.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Republicanism

Category:English republicans has been removed, as I can see no source for it. -- TrottieTrue (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources showing that he's an Irish citizen, thus remaining an EU citien

[47][48] Doug Weller talk 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)