Talk:Paul Deighton, Baron Deighton

New Job

Perhaps it should be added to the page that this person is the new non-exec chair of Goldman Sachs International — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onerandomhorseshoe (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Removed from main page because unsourced

<allged BLP vio removed per BLP on 19:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)>

Ikip (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<London Gazette extract removed>

London Gazette. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The London Gazette is Crown Copyright, please can you link to the source rather than copying it? January (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Would one of you mind explaining what's going on here? Either the claims made are dangerous BLP vios that needed to be removed, or they are harmless claims that merely need someone to add refs. If it's the former, this stuff should be deleted from the talk page ASAP because BLP applies to the talk page just as much to the article. If it is the latter, it should be re-added to the article. Incidentally, the paragraph beginning "After winning the bid" appears to have a source. Given the strong connection between the quote and the rest of the paragraph, the source seems to be intended to support the whole thing. So if whichever of you put this here insists on this bizarre middle route, then please highlight exactly what you think isn't sourced and needs one instead of leaving it to everyone else to bear the burden of that choice. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This article was stubbed down back in 2009 [1] by User:Cameron Scott, User:Ikip copied the material onto the talk page. That was long before I came by the article, Kittybrewster wasn't involved either. January (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Regardless of who did it, it was wrong. Either it should be deleted or woven back in since talk pages are not exempt from BLP. Is there a compelling reason to keep it? -Rrius (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. It was probably put here in the hope that other editors would source and restore it, but that's unnecessary now that the article has been rebuilt. January (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Then away it goes... -Rrius (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation for full name

The in-line citation to the subject's full name has been removed twice; the reasons given were that citations are not necessary in the lead and that the name also appears in the recently added House of Lords minutes, however the removal leaves the full name without an in-line citation anywhere in the article. WP:LEADCITE states that leads should conform to WP:V and there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. It doesn't matter to me whether or not this citation is actually in the lead (the infobox would be an alternative) or which of the two possible references available it is cited to, but it should have an in-line citation. January (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. If you actually read what it says, it refers to the general rule that what needs to be cited is anything that "is challenged or likely to be challenged". Later it says, "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." It is bizarre to anticipate a challenge to something as innocuous as his middle name. You don't appear to have any doubt that Deighton's middle name is Clive, so you are citing for the of citing, without any regard to to whether the information is controversial in the least. -Rrius (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not citing for the sake of citing - personal information in a BLP should always be cited to a reliable source to demonstrate that it complies with WP:BLPPRIVACY and has not been obtained from an unsuitable source in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Editors can and do (rightly) remove unsourced personal info from BLPs so the inline citation is needed to demonstrate that it is sourced. Without the citation anyone looking at this article would not be able to tell where the information actually originated from (we shouldn't expect them to check though the references that aren't cited as the source), or even whether someone made it up as vandals have been known to do. January (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a citation to the House of Lords minutes. Sorry if my last comment came across as a bit of a rant, but I added the citation when the name was added to the article a few months ago because I genuinely consider that personal information in a BLP does require a citation, I'm not trying to be pedantic. I don't particularly like citations in the lead and avoid them where possible, but since the info is not repeated anywhere else in the article (only just noticed that it's no longer in the infobox) there's really nowhere else to put it. January (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Deighton, Baron Deighton. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gStj_2M6tGQy3cnI8nl930J5lOHA?docId=CNG.110a62bc4b4e4474e6de9ae457ae5f8b.3c1
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iVfPOOnCJe_6m_9HYHZIjXclWXRw?docId=N0366531346707091620A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811214753/http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/60587/downing_street_statement_on_paul_deighton_appointment.html to http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/60587/downing_street_statement_on_paul_deighton_appointment.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)