Talk:Chris Kelly (British politician)

Private Eye material

I have removed reference to his remuneration from his company, sourced from private eye. As:

1) Private Eye is not a neutral source. It is a source that delights in making public figures look bad. Simply rehashing its material here is not in the spirit of NPOV 2) The statement "and receives £40,000 remuneration for this role in addition to his standard salary as a Member of Parliament" is a) only claimed at the time of the publication (does he still?) and b) loaded. Private Eye is insinuating that there's something improper about that. And the phrase "in addition" drawing the reader's attention to the "double salary" is loaded. If we did think this material reliable, we should not include "in addition to...". That MPs are paid is not in doubt, and there's no neutral reason to draw anyone's attention to it. --Scott Mac 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. I can separate their opinion from specific facts. Private Eye is often the first to report on stories which are later picked up by the mainstream media. Why are they "reliable sources" if they repeat what is written in the Eye?

You have a good second point. I don't believe there is something improper in his actions, but I do believe the articles of Members of Parliament should include details on their outside financial interests. I assume they garnered the £40,000 claim from here. [1] We should wait until the next register is published. I appreciate your work, but I originally fought battles over this page with anonymous editors from the Houses of Parliament, so am wary of their agenda. Keep up the good work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this again. It is simply not neutral and leading. It implies something wrong. Lets get some other opinions here to settle this. Don't replace it until we've got a consensus.--Scott Mac 12:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have neutralized the text, with a citation to Parliament. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that. I've cross posted to the WP:BLPNB looking for more input. But if we're agreed on just as the text as it is, that may have been unneccessary.--Scott Mac 12:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I do wish you would change your opinion on Private Eye though :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourced material repeatedly removed by Houses of Parliament address

Text relating to Chris Kelly using his Parliamentary account to email MPs to get his sister a job, has been repeatedly removed by addresses in the Houses of Parliament and by Jayen466. I propose this material is retained as relevant and sourced in the article. I have for the time being reverted it back into the article due to concerns over possible Conflict of interest and suggest it remains while under discussion unless a consensus to remove is clear. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I originally put the information in. It disturbs me that elected officials and their staff take time to anonymously massage these pages. I do wish they would engage with us. [2] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The material makes up 20% of the entire biography. As far as I can see, it is sourced to nothing more than the Daily Mail, and one Labour MP complaining that Kelly used the wrong e-mail account. As I said in my edit summary, which reputable biographical dictionary would devote 20% of its biography of a parliamentarian to something like this? JN466 19:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also note discussion initiated by Fæ (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Chris_Kelly_.28British_politician.29. --JN466 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The DM is a reliable source in this instance. It was originally source to Private Eye, but that got slapped down. The 20% figure may reflect the fact that he has had a not particularly interesting parliamentary career. We could include more on his Eurosceptism. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, Private Eye got "slapped down"? --JN466 20:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above this one. I am so wary of using the Eye to ref all the amazing stories therein. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Scott Mac describes some other insinuation in the discussion above that was in this article at one time, rather than the one we're talking about now, about the e-mail. Basically, this seems to be something that only the Daily Mail took an interest in. The Daily Mail should not be used for controversial information in BLPs; recent discussions at RSN have tended to conclude that its reliability is borderline, that it's better to cite other papers, and that if there aren't any others reporting on a particular Daily Mail story, the material probably has little business being in an encyclopedia article in the first place. The Daily Mail is at the bottom of our reliability and relevance scale. In my view, inclusion puts too much weight on a very minor episode which the Daily Mail very much tried to make something of, but which no one has claimed broke any laws or parliamentary rules. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Cheers, --JN466 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

While DM is RS, WP:BLP states that strong sourcing is needed for contentious claims. I went with the second source and reduced the claim to what is clearly an NPOV exposition I trust. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)