Talk:Derek Mackay

EU

Is he a fan of the EU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.168.113 (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Grooming"?

With regard to repeated edits such as this one, is this within WP:BLP guidelines? Since child grooming is a criminal offence, under sections 14 and 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (or the corresponding Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009), and Mackay has not been charged, let alone convicted, this seems wholly WP:UNDUE, at least for the lead section. Most of the claims, that he was involved in "grooming", seem to have been made after the event, and not the primary cause for his resignation. The original primary source, The Scottish Sun is not a reliable source, so its claims may be ignored? Martinevans123 (talk)

I think where the word is used it should be attributed. Either to the organisation (be it news media) or to the individual in the case of Jackson Carlaw. His comment might be seen as the equivalent to very carefully avoiding actually making the accusation, but the inference is clear. We also need to watch out on COPYVIO as a few of the phrases used are very close to the principle BBC source at the moment (particularly the sentences in / around Carlaw). Koncorde (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently one sentence that mentions Carlaw, and which includes his quoted words. By all means suggest an alternative that keeps the exact meaning. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

[1] Cherry made the same allegation Kingbird1 (talk)

If 50 fellow MSPs had all made the same accusation, would we individually add and attribute all 50? It seems most have made no comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, at that point you would assume one of the major media orgs would have summarised it hopefully, otherwise we just go for the main ones. Koncorde (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Well Joanna Cherry is also an SNP politician, whereas Jackson Carlaw is a Scottish Conservative. I'm not sure if party allegiance has any bearing on who, or how many, are named in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Seniority of position likely goes first, Carla's being acting leader of the Scots Conservatives. I am sure there are lots of people on twitter saying stuff, but realistically we should be trying to limit ourselves only to the significant and inherently notable, or where the statements are impactful or definitive. If no further action is taken by police then we might presume this is largely as much as is really going to be relevant. Koncorde (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As the matter might be "sub judice", is there a valid argument that even attributed comments might be prejudicial? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

So long as we are neutral, and reflect only what is stated in the media, and don't get into overblown lists of people who have all said the same thing for the sake of sensationalism then I don't think that is a concern. Just need to keep the refs focused on quality RS, and avoid tabloid type speculation. Koncorde (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "child grooming" comes into it, as the legislation relates to "a child under 16," which was clearly not the case. We should be wary of falling in with the tabloids' prurient agenda. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree. No offence has been committed and no complaint has been made against Mackay. One wonders exactly how The Scottish Sun came to hear about the matter, since only two people should have had access to these texts? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

According to the BBC, the boy's mother approached the Sunday Sun having learned about the messages a few days before: see here JezGrove (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps a few words of explanation should be added to the article? I see that the Daily Mail describes the boy as "traumatised" - presumably the trauma of his mother having found out. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

More likely as a result of being doorstepped by goons from the Daily Mail, if User:Hillbillyholiday's experience a while back is anything to go by! I'll try to add clarification about the Sunday Sun's source in a mo if I'm not beaten to it. JezGrove (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, probably. I had almost forgotten that shameful episode. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's remember WP:NPOV. Suggestions that The Scottish Sun acted inappropriately or about the nature of the boy's trauma are speculative and not supported by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I quite prepared to believe that Daily Mail just made that up because it sounded good. I guess it comes down to whether one sees most tabloid journalism as "acting appropriately". I'm not sure of the Scottish Sun's politics. I imagine that aspect might get some analysis in the Sunday broadsheets today. We also don't know how old the boy was when the messaging began. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have strong opinions about the issues. That's fine, but let's keep content consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and Talk page content consistent with discussion of how to improve the article (WP:NOTFORUM). Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think my opinions are really "strong" at all. It looks like a classic piece of tabloid dirt-digging to me. I'm left wondering if any money changed hands, but sorry if that's WP:FORUM. I have some sympathy with each of the parties on this case, except perhaps the newspaper. If any of the Sunday broadsheets offer an analysis, I think that a brief mention might offer a way to improve the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

While I agree we should heed Bondegezou's concerns regarding NPOV etc, I also feel we should not be too concerned about speculating about the quality of journalism going on here, and having healthy scepticism about what should be included. It is always better to try and stick to objective outcomes and notable subjective opinion, rather than getting into the actual prurient content of articles themselves (which can be very much tainted by tabloid behaviour and speculation which makes them famously less reliable for pretty much anything other than their own opinion). Koncorde (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The resignation section is getting overly detailed. We are not News and shouldn't be doing Newsy type sections. We do not need to summarise each and every claim made by sources because that just introduces undue weight, particularly when they have no reference to the subject, nor should we be repeating unverified claims by either The Sun, or Sturgeon or any other. We also need to be wary of overstretching meagre detail by repeating it verbatim. This is both close to COPYVIO and unlikely to be neutrally phrased. I will take a proper look in the morning but the additions since Friday have added a lot of text, but little clarity and a lot of POV from the sources which is problematic with a BLP. Koncorde (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There is, sure, a tendency to WP:RECENTISM when covering events like these. In the fullness of time, the pertinent elements of the story will be more apparent and coverage will settle down. At present, all the material seems relevant to me. We are sticking to reliable source citations, which is good. We should cover what reliable sources cover, and reliable sources have had plenty to say about claims by The Sun and Sturgeon's office, so we should cover them, with appropriate wording as to their epistemological weight. I don't see an immediate POV concern with the content, but certainly more editing will undoubtedly be appropriate at the story unfolds. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

One question, however, is how to cover related events where Mackay contacted people. The National has an article that uses this wording: A number of young men have since come forward to say that they too received inappropriate or creepy messages from the man once tipped to be the next First Minister. Wording like that to summarise several cases may work well. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's the lack of attribution that is a POV issue, and will cause neutrality issues down the line when we lose track of who said what and in what situation. I have added a few elements this morning to hopefully clarify some of the bigger elements. Still need to look at the flow of information as it's a mix of investigation / resignation and then resignation / suspension / complaint and see what can be condensed as we're piecemealing a lot of sentences. Koncorde (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought your tightening up of attributions earlier was helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Derek MacKay 2018.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories

HamiltonWest19 (and two different IP editors in the past week) have added Category:LGBT politicians from Scotland. However, this is a parent Category of Category:LGBT members of the Scottish Parliament and so is unnecessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

HamiltonWest19, please read WP:SUBCAT. Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Academic background

Is their proof that Mackay actually attended Glasgow University? if that University does not offer social work courses, then where did Mackay study social work? Maybe he attended a University in Glasgow not the actual Glasgow University! The article mentions his Glasgow University attendence twice, this is not required hence the deletion of one of these. Devokewater ^(talk) 09:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)