Talk:Andrew Rosindell

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

Unsourced speculation[edit]

There's a barrage of unsourced speculation, clearly in violation of WP:BLP. While it's clear that he's a polarising figure - can this stuff please be remoed?

JASpencer (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UT

Attendance at parliament[edit]

Regarding this edit: The statement regarding Rosindell's attendance at Parliament is unsourced and I have been unable to find a source that supports that statement. Regarding his voting record, I think there's a bit more wiggle room here but, overall, I think we need something better than a raw primary source to support the statement per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary and is clearly inserted by someone bitter about the subject. Unless there's been an actual controversy/outcry about Rosindell's attendance then it's not notable. — Czello (music) 07:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand there is a good reason for this absence that will hopefully be able to be reliably sourced at some point, but I agree that it's not worthy of including if that is the only source available. SmartSE (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/23583386.conservative-mp-rape-case-bail-extended-met-police/
Would this be considered a source suitable to return the attendance and criminal investigation elements? Ashley (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the article does not mention Rosindell's name at all. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because an elected official has not attended parliament nor voted in over a year. Essentially the people in Romford are being unrepresentative. 62.30.16.82 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To justify inclusion we need independent sources that have shown this is notable. — Czello (music) 14:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So showing his voting record, via public websites is not enough? 62.30.16.82 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are primary sources and don't actually establish why it's notable. — Czello (music) 16:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is an elected official who has not voted nor attended parliament in over a year and the people of Romford have not been represented in over a year? Not to mention that he will not say why he has not voted. 62.30.16.82 (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not for us as editors to make this point; we can only relay what reliable sources are reporting on the matter. — Czello (music) 08:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some very weird comments above. Obviously its noteable if a legislator never attends the legislature to which he has been appointed. In fact, might be useful to note attendance records on all political biographies. Westminster parliament and other sources post voting records of members, so it should be obvious if someone has systematically not attended. 18:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wasnt sure if to start a new section or line. However, should a new section be worked on as the rape case has now concluded - https://news.sky.com/story/police-drop-rape-investigation-into-tory-mp-andrew-rosindell-13070008 - and will likely need a full section in the main page given Rosindell's inactivity the past 21 months. Not sure how best to go about writing this, so thought maybe best to discuss here first. Garfie489 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking record in Parliament[edit]

The MP has not spoken in parliament since April 2022. Previously he asked several questions per month. I added this information to his parliamentary career and it was removed. This is relevant as clearly the core part of the MP job is not being done

Lack of spoken comments in parliament since april 2022. 83.137.6.163 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above discussions on this subject. — Czello (music) 11:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tory whip has forbade a Tory MP from attending Parliament since April 2022 in relation to met police rape investigation. The speaker forbade MPs revealing the identity of the MP and forbade press reporting on this matter. There are no other tory MPs who have failed to make at least one spoken comment in parliament since April 2022. This is notable and a reasonable assumption in the circumstances. 84.203.93.177 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources demonstrating this? — Czello (music) 21:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have an email from his office confirming that "due to a personal matter" he has been told to not attend nor vote in parliament. 62.30.16.82 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't at all sound like a reliable source, I'm afraid. We need independent sources that discuss this to justify inclusion. — Czello (music) 12:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an email from his chief of staff? How is that not a reliable source? 2A00:23EE:1660:8934:1601:EB8C:BC40:4241 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it's not verifiable; there's no way for us as editors or for readers to know that the email is genuine. Secondly even if it were it would be considered a primary source. For something like this independent sources are required. — Czello (music) 17:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not verifiable when it is an email from his chief of staff that has the signature of his chief of staff along with said email address. How much more of a primary source can get then his chief of staff? 62.30.16.82 (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember I'm saying we should avoid primary sources. But to answer your Q, I'm saying it's not verifiable to us as editors and readers - see WP:V for more info. There's also no demonstration of notability of this fact. — Czello (music) 12:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://blackislemedia.com/2023/05/22/met-police-seek-extension-to-tory-mp-andrew-rosindells-bail-in-rape-investigation/?amp 84.203.51.59 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would be a reliable source. This appears to be a very small media company which largely appears to be staffed by one individual (Alex Tiffin). Indeed it essentially appears to be his blog. He goes to great lengths to say that the story is being reported on exclusively by him - for such a controversial claim about a WP:BLP we'd need more robust sourcing. — Czello (music) 17:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source indicates a Tory MP arrested but not charged was banned from attending Parliament last year by Tory Whip Chris Heaton Harris. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/18599461/tory-mp-arrested-for-rape/
The press will not report the accused's identity due to new legislation until charges are made https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/tory-mp-arrested-not-named-media/
However given the party, age of accussed, sex, date of initial arrest / ban from Parliament and official parliament spoken contribution records there is speculation Andrew Rosindell is the MP arrested last year. 84.203.51.59 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't make that assumption, it's WP:OR and speculation, and therefore violates WP:BLP. We can only include such a thing in our article if it's widely reported and he's explicitly named. — Czello (music) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why can we not comment that he not voted in parliament since April 2022 even though I have an email? 62.30.16.82 (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the email isn't verifiable for other editors and readers. For us to comment on that there'd need to be a demonstration that it's notable, such as it being widely reported in the media. — Czello (music) 10:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not verifiable?
Like honestly? 62.30.16.82 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, there's no real way for any of us to know (as well as passing readers to know) that it's legitimate. None of us have access to your emails. Additionally, again as mentioned above, it's a primary source and therefore should be avoided. Finally, again as mentioned, notability hasn't been demonstrated. — Czello (music) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if I was to supply you with the email directly? 62.30.16.82 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Things like that can still be fabricated (not saying you are, but we need to be strict about this, 2) it's still not verifiable to readers, 3) it doesn't actually change anything for the reasons I've mentioned above - that is, it's a primary source and still not notable. — Czello (music) 15:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Email is not an reliable source as it could be fabricated. A09 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this article https://news.sky.com/story/public-has-a-right-to-know-speaker-refuses-to-reveal-why-mps-wanted-parliament-attendance-data-deleted-12671394
It is stated that in June 2022 Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg met with the Speaker in weeks following the arrest and ban from Parliament of another Tory MP whose identity is being kept from the public. It is noted in the article attendance records of MPs in Parliament are to be deleted. The article is notable as it quotes a democracy group that states attendance in parliament is held in very high interest and there are concerns about 'obfustiction' and lack of tranparency.
This article https://metro.co.uk/2022/05/19/tory-rape-arrest-mps-accuser-is-male-who-was-teen-when-they-met-16670710/ notes concerns and a different approach (VIZ. A formal suspension by a suspect under investigation for sexual assault) that would occur in the Labour Party (quoting
Kier Starmer) or the London Fire Brigade. The hierarchy of risk is also notable whereby the effort to reduce risk of sexual assault in Parliment (raised by the Speaker) are not afforded to constituents where the MP not permiteed to attend Parliament may be around constuents and MP office staff unaware of ongoing criminal investigations.
The Parliamentary voting record of MP Andrew Rosindell https://members.parliament.uk/member/1447/contributions is currently not deleted after 7 days and notes a cessation of voting and contributions in Parliament in April 2022. I believe this information should be noted in the Parliamentary record of the MP Andrew Rosindell as evidently he is not attending Parliament and this is notable as a top interest for constituents and this record of zero votes or contributions should covered in a wikipedia page (leaving out any speculations regarding sexual assault, ill health,etc). Constituents can then come to their own conclusion about what the reason for the unexplained lack of contributions and regarding their personal safety outside Westminster.
Finally 'Czello' does not think it significant that a Member of Parliament is not attending Parliament. While I respect a anyone with a detailed knowledge of Grand Admiral Thrawn can this be considered more widely, sanity checked? For me and perhaps others attendance in Parliament by a member of Parliament so that they can 'Parler' is literally what is says on the tin. This needs looking at. 83.137.6.163 (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues here is that, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we are limited in how we can use primary sources, like voting records, in biographies of living people (BLP). In general, we are heavily discouraged from using primary sources by themselves. We would first need some kind of reliable secondary source to discuss an issue. In this case, there simply aren't any reliable secondary sources that have made such a discussion. In the news articles you linked above, none of them mention Rosindell.
Put another way, we generally would need a reliable, secondary source to state that this specific MP has not cast a vote in X number of months before we could mention it here.
Why? One of Wikipedia's core content policies requires articles to present in a fair and proportional way all the significant views that have been discussed by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is taken very seriously in biography articles. If a viewpoint has not been mentioned by any reliable sources, as seems to be the case here, it would not be appropriate for us to discuss it at all. Perhaps this policy may not seem fair to some parties, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two links do not mention Rosindell at all. We can't draw a conclusion from them no matter how sure we are that they're talking about him - that's original research. Also, to address your final paragraph: it's not that *I* don't think it's significant he's not attending parliament - it's that notability needs to be actively demonstrated, and so far it hasn't been.
As I feel we're going in circles a little bit here, here's what we need:
  1. Any source we use must explicitly mention Andrew Rosindell. If it doesn't mention him, it's speculation
  2. Primary sources are to be avoided
  3. Sources must be considered reliable
  4. Notability needs to be demonstrated - note that personal opinion that something is notable is also to be avoided; independent sources need to widely discuss something for it to be considered notable
Technically all Wikipedia articles follow these guidelines, but any article about a living person are more strict on this. Ultimately, we need to be robust in our sourcing, especially if we're talking about allegations against him. It's also worth pointing out that if he hasn't been named widely in the media then it's not our job to name him, either. — Czello (music) 07:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He last spoke in Parliament on April 25th 2022.
Hansard tracks every speech in parliament and is the best available source.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?memberId=1447&startDate=2022-04-01&endDate=2023-07-13&type=Spoken&outputType=List&partial=False&sortOrder=1 Eoghankll (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When he last spoke isn't in dispute; please see my last message. — Czello (music) 08:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why should it not be included in his profile? 62.30.16.82 (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained this at length by this point. I don't mean to be rude, but please re-read my earlier messages. — Czello (music) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a factual claim with strong references. You agree.
An MP not speaking in Parliament is relevant information. You agree.
All you claim to oppose is adding unsubstantiated rumours to the profile, but no one is arguing that we should. Eoghankll (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't agree to either of those. — Czello (music) 22:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd to refuse to accept Hansard as a reference. It's a ridiculous position to have backed yourself into. Eoghankll (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're still missing the point about how Wikipedia operates for the reasons I outlined above.
However, today the Times published a news story about his arrest, the allegations against him, and his absence from parliament. This is what we were looking for and is much more in line with what's expected for an article like this - so the matter is resolved. — Czello (music) 08:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed the edit war from earlier in the month, and went and found multiple other articles confirming the same story. Unfortunately, some such as the londoneconomic are blacklisted - however some key points came up. Namely it appears Rosindell has publicly commented to say he is not attending parliament whilst on bail due to a "gentlemans agreement", and his bail has been extended 4/5 times and currently is set to expire in Feb 2024. Have added to the article in hopefully a neutral way, but didnt want to touch the lead unless others were happy with the addition given the back and forth already seen. Garfie489 (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additions--I've edited it a bit. INKL is a news aggregator and not an actual source, and the article is no longer available from the original newspaper for whatever reason. Black Isle Media is not a reliable source because it is self-published. However, several of the points raised were included in The Independent's coverage beyond the paywall, so I didn't revert everything outright. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a debate here about use of sources. The discouragement on primary sources is about the extent to which they are verifiable if others have not checked what they assert, ie in secondary sources. However I dont know anyone who claims westminster or any other established democratic parliament for that matter deliberately falsify voting records published about members. If no one here is claiming the voting records are false, then they should be used if relevant to the article. This debate is clearly gerrymandering seeking to prevent the inclusion of obvious fact. 18:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sandpiper:, I think you're using one too many "~" when you're signing (I'm assuming this is the case because your user name is not appearing in your signature). Not a big deal, but the Reply tool doesn't work unless there's a username included in the signature. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, yes five seems too many whereas four is just right. Sandpiper (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Rosindell&oldid=1210123767"