Talk:Tom Watson, Baron Watson of Wyre Forest/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

BLP

The final two sentences under "expenses scandal", are defamatory, neither accurate nor relevant to the specific section. Could a administrator please delete.

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 00:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Update request for external link 19

External link 19 "Cost Cutting Digital Minister Named in Expenses Scandal" should link to a story on the site I edit, eWEEK Europe UK.

The target address has changed. The link is now: http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/digital-minister--we-ll-cut--35bn-in-costs-by-2011-905

Judgecorp (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Swap events and achievements?

It would make more sense to me if it were that way round -- a bit of history first, and then what got done. Any opinions? Harry Metcalfe (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Phone hacking scandal

I've started a section on the News of the World phone hacking scandal; Watson played a considerable role in bringing this matter to wider public attention; see [1], [2], [3]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjects at University?

What has been W. subjects at University.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First ever Deputy Chair of the Labour Party

Just noticed that the first paragraph currently has this sentence:

In 2011, he was made the first ever Deputy Chair of the Labour Party, with responsibility for co-ordinating Labour's campaigning, by Ed Miliband.

But the info boxes at the bottom and sidebar indicate that Stephen Timms was previously in this role. so I'm flagging whether "first ever" is correct, or it's meaning is different from "first ever Deputy Chair of the Labour Party". Thanks Isofarro (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Involvement in the recent false accusations regarding Lord McAlpine

The news in the UK has been recently been dominated by accusations and implications, falsely, accusing Lord McAlpine of being involved in a Paedophile ring, operating in North Wales in the last 1970s and early 80s. However it is now clear that this was a case of mistaken identify, as the victim of the abuse (having now seen a photo of Lord McAlping), has confirmed that he was not involved. However, the BBC's flagship current affairs program, Newsnight, ran a piece which used the term 'Senior Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher', to implicate Lord McAlpine and insinuate some kind of paedophile conspiracy in the Conservative government of the day, without actually checking the facts first. I seems the victim has been told at the time, that his abuser was (then Mr, now) Lord McAlpine, who was never involved. The result has been several resignations in the BBC, and a lot of soul searching in how the media jumps on a paedophile band wagon, and throws mud everywhere.

On 11th November the BBCs Political Editor, Nick Robinson wrote this piece on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20287067 which implicated Tom Watson, as one of those at the source of the original allegations. The suspicion being that this was a cynical attempt to throw mud at political opponents, in light of the recent Jimmy Saville allegations. Pretty low political tactics, when it involves the abuse of children.

I would like to see something detailing his involvement in the whole affair, but as a member of the Conservative party, I feel I would be unable to give an unbiased account. Could someone please write something. I think the seriousness of the affair warrants inclusion of a fair summation of the facts of Mr Watson's involvement.

sibaz (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close, duplicate discussion NE Ent 22:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC) NE Ent 22:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes |current1=Tom Watson (politician)|new1=Tom Watson|current2=Tom Watson|new2=Tom Watson (disambiguation)|}}

– As he is now deputy leader of the British Labour party, an important post, I suggest he is now the primary meaning. The others do not look particularly notable. PatGallacher (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 12 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED due to consensus. Tiggerjay (talk) Tiggerjay (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Tom Watson (politician) → Tom Watson (Labour politician) – Incomplete disambiguation. Thomas_Watson#Politicians lists 6 other politicians called "Tom Watson" or "Thomas Watson". The name Thomas is so commonly abbreviated to Tom that we can't assume a distinction between the two. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Alternative proposal Move him to plain "Tom Watson" and the existing page to "Tom Watson (disambiguation)". As he is now deputy leader of the British Labour party, an important post, I suggest he is now the primary meaning. The others do not look particularly notable. PatGallacher (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @PatGallacher: I considered that possibility, but it seems to me that the Labour Deputy Leader falls way short of being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
      1. A WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs to be more significant than all other instances combined. With so many others listed, that's a high hurdle
      2. Most people called Thomas are frequently abbreviated to Tom, so the primariness needs to be considered against Tom and Thomas.
      3. Even if we consider only the articles titled Tom, Tom Watson (golfer) has been an internationally-notable sportsman for decades. Hs page has got 90K hits in the last 90days, but the Labour politician has got only 53K hits in 90 days. Maybe the politician's hits will rise, but its worth noting that the outgoing deputy leader (and acting leader for the last 4 months) has got only 62K hits in the last 90 days. Watson as a deputy will have a lower profile than an acting leader, so I see so no reason to expect him to be more sought after than Harman.
    • This may change in the future, but for now the Labour Deputy Leader clearly fails primary both on hits and on long-term significance (cos he he's only been in the job a few days). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Not a primary topic, and ambiguous disambiguation fails WP:PRECISE -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, withdraw my proposal, also forgot about Thomas E. Watson, a fairly important figure. Support move to "Labour politician". PatGallacher (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Leon Brittan

Mr Watson's campaign of false charges of child abuse and rape against the late Leon Britton (a campaign directed against the man as he was dying of cancer) should also be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B5DA:7B00:21A1:879D:4DA3:98B8 (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Picture of Tom Watson is painfully outdated - could someone look to change that? Thanks x VelvetCommuter (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tom Watson (Labour politician). 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:

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) 12:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradicting sources

Regarding Mr. Watson's personal life, a new interview with him in The Guardian states that he has been single since his divorce a few years ago. This contrasts directly with what is said already, concerning the fact that he had got together with someone four months after his divorce. The Birmingham Post article is not WP:BLPPRIMARY, while The Guardian one is. Nevertheless, might be worth some discussion. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Watson (Labour politician). 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:

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) 10:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Does a politicians voting record need a secondary source?

I removed the addition of Watson's vote for the Iraq war - I see no reason why this should be included without a secondary source to show notability. What is inherently important about this as opposed to other votes? If it is so important then why hasn't it been covered by secondary sources? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you still seeking to remove this on the basis of WP:NOTABILITY? Are you familiar with WP policies, and what we mean by that? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Could you explain which policies you are referring to? WP:NOTABILITY is about "whether a given topic warrants its own article". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
You're the one claiming that it needs to be removed unless it shows notability! Notability is just not an issue here, please don't try and claim it as a big unchangeable policy to hide behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I think notability in terms of content for an article is (generally!) quite well understood on Wikipedia, either something has a secondary source to show notability, or is inherently notable enough to put it in with a primary source, e.g. a politicians birth year, their school/university, dates of elections etc. You haven't specified why you think the vote was notable enough to include with a primary source, and equally why we shouldn't include other votes from the same source (of which there are hundreds). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I originally made the edit. There are a number of secondary sources for his vote aside from theyworkforyou.com - more than happy to reference them if you insist on it. I would have thought it would be fairly obvious to most people why a politicians vote on going to war would be more important than other votes, quite frankly. Total Dynamic (talk) 14.:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you TD, there are a large number of sources that highlight the defining importance of this particular vote. See for example BBC News. Given the significance of the vote on global history it may be the most significant thing any of those politicians did. ℕ ℱ 20:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The vote was covered by the Labour whip and the majority of Labour (and other party) MPs voted in favour, so (without a secondary source), I don't see why this is particularly notable. Happy to include it if you have a secondary source though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


Tom Watson (Labour politician) → Tom Watson (politician) – All the other politicians are called Thomas. Unreal7 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thomas E. Watson was also called Tom. Dekimasuよ! 18:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unreal7 you've been asked again and again to please check both the articles affected and Gbooks before issuing RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
By you and you alone, IIO. Never by anyone else. Unreal7 (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
But I'm not the only one pointing out the use of WP:RS as references. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
But you are the only one who thinks Google Books is reliable enough to oppose/overturn moves. Unreal7 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Unreal7, I strongly agree with @In ictu oculi. Please do your homework before launching RMs. And if you persist in launching RMs without prior research and in claiming that Gbooks is not a reliable source, it is likely that someone will conclude that you are being disruptive, and escalate. I urge you to carefully study WP:AT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if there is anything everyone agrees upon at RM it's that we rely on usage on WP:RS and usage in Gbooks is generally a good indicator (there are exceptions, but there are specific reasons for those). --В²C ☎ 05:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. But probably should be Tom Watson (British politician), as the other politician called Tom Watson was American and we usually only use the party if the nationality fails to disambiguate. There's no evidence the other British politicians called Thomas Watson were known as Tom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since Tom" is the standard diminutive for Thomas, it is likely that the others were also known to some extent as "Tom", unless there is evidence to the contrary. When we're disambiguating anyway, which create this avoidable ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Donors

Why is this needed? It's not typically found on biographies of politicians, so why should Mr Watson be an exception? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I have removed it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Steve Bell

I agree with User:Jontel, I don't think it's necessary to include the content about the cartoon. Bellowhead678 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"South Riding of Yorkshire"

Outside the fiction of Winifred Holtby and the fanzine of Barnsley F.C., there is not (nor to my knowledge, has there ever been) a "South Riding". For reasons I won't labour here, there couldn't be. In fact, Watson was born in the West Riding, which was split under the 1974 local government reorganisation into two metropolitan counties: West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.57.0 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Watson,_Baron_Watson_of_Wyre_Forest/Archive_1&oldid=1123136417"