Talk:Anthony Bennett (Veritas politician)

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

Material being repeated[edit]

  • {{Anthony Bennett (English politician)]] material being repeated.81.107.164.53

}} I think the author shoould make a distinction in the name.... Anthony John Stewart Bennett in the title. Their are numerous other Anthony Bennett's in the world, and as one of them, I would like to be entirely disassociated with all political figures. It is misleading to have the heading Anthony Bennett, to reference Anthony John Stewart Bennett, when there is no definitive or most famous Anthony Bennett. The most famous Anthony Bennetts I am aware of, is the Australia artist Anthony Bennett, or the former Barrow and London Skolars RL player, or indeed the prominent lawyer Anthony Bennett - all of whom should be entitle to their own space in wikepedia. This page seems to getting more & more like an advert for Tony Bennett, he seems to be a self publicist more interested in his name being mentioned everywere & using this site for sales of books, not very good for Wikipedia. Is this the same Anthony Bennett actor & voice overs? Have seen this guy on GMTV, very good actor.

Section 131[edit]

131(2) reads

"If a person without lawful authority or excuse pulls down or obliterates a traffic sign places on or over a highway, or a milestone or direction post (not being a traffic sign) so placed, he is guilty of an offence; but it is a defence in any proceedings under this subsection to show that the traffic sign, milestone or post is was not lawfully so placed."

Just to point out that the original entry was created without my knowledge; I have added to it, but so have others. Just for the record, it is Anthony John Stuart Bennett. I was informed that on 8 July, a malicious entry about me was placed on the site (I have a copy); someone kindly removed it on 9 July before I had a chance to see it. In response to the person above (who ought to improve his spelling, by the way), it was not me that chose the description 'English politician' and I don't think it's that accurate, though I have been a candidate in several elections. I would have no objection to the entry about me on Wikipedia in its entirety being removed - T Bennett, 26 July 2007.


Editing your own Wikipedia article[edit]

Dude....are you editing your own wikipedia article? Are you aware of Wikipedia's standards on that? FYI;

Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases.

Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles.[1] Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedia neutral and helps avoid point-of-view-pushing.

Writing autobiographies is highly discouraged. It is not impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and they are not strictly forbidden. But there are many common problems.

If you have published elsewhere on a topic, we strongly welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Articles that exist primarily to advance the contributor will likely be deleted. Autobiographies are no exception.--Amadscientist 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: I am not familiar with all the Wikipedia rules. What I do know is that Wikipedia allowed the original entry about me, which was quite hostile and contained a number of inaccuracies. Wikipedia did not tell me that they had sanctioned this article and I only found out about it when someone (a journalist) said: 'Do you know what Wikipedia is saying about you?'.

I have responded to that initial article by giving some biographical details so that readers have a fuller picture of who I am and what I have campaigned about. I say again that I would have no objection at all if the entire article was removed. What I could not allow to stand, without correction and amplification, was a slanted, inaccurate portrayal of my career.

I see there is comment about me on my page, such as this: "Despite these activities, he is generally considered sane". That is opinion, and I do not seek to interfere with it. But I reserve the right to correct factual inaccuracies about me.

Tony Bennett 29 July 8.50am

Correction of factual inaccuracies should certainly not be looked down upon. We exist to provide factual, well-referenced content, after all. --Agamemnon2 10:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: I have now seen this in the form of a private message:

QUOTES

Mr. Bennett, It appears your recent edits to Anthony Bennett (English politician) have been against our conflict of interest editing policy. Please stop, and allow a more neutral editor to step up and edit. You can read about our manual of style here. Somitho 10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC) If you have further concerns relating to the content of articles you are featured as a subject of, please take up the matter on the talk page. --Agamemnon2 10:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Bennett" Tony Bennett is no more a politician than Mickey Mouse.

UNQUOTE

Question: Is there a process whereby I can be notified if anyone changes the content of this page about me? Incidentally my recent edits over the past 24 hours have been mostly to add sources where previously it said 'citation needed'. I was simply following Wikipedia policy. I have no objection of course to a 'neutral editor' - but how do I know what s/he is posting, what s/he may be adding or deleting? I don't want to have to visit my page evey day. The main reason I have been visiting my page recently is because there was an untrue, libellous and malicious entry about me placed on my page on 8 July and I only learnt about it by accident. I am grateful by the way to the editor who spotted this on 9 July and removed the adverse entry

Tony Bennett 12.10pm 29 July

There isn't really a way that we can notify you of every change, although there is your 'watchlist', which is basically a tool that will show you changes to pages you have 'watched'. However, you'll need to log in to use it, and it's only really useful if you're monitoring more than one article. If you would like any changes made to your page, just list what you think is wrong here, and other editors will check your suggested changes and correct the article if necessary. Archer7 11:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are using an RSS reader, like many people do nowadays (your email program might have one integrated), you can go to the article's history page and click on the "RSS" or "Atom" links. This should add a feed to your reader where each edit to the article will show up as a new entry not long after it has been made.
You are always welcome to point out inaccuracies on this talk page. If no one reacts and the statement in question is not sourced, there is usually no objection if you remove it yourself - make sure you explain the deletion briefly in the edit summary. Adding new material and changing existing statements is likely to be frowned upon, although it is appreciated that you tried to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and that you are not hiding your identity while editing the article about yourself.
Regards, High on a tree 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rogers Cadenhead (2005-12-19). "Wikipedia Founder Looks Out for Number 1". cadenhead.org. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Clean up[edit]

OK I have spent a while today cleaning up this article so that it reads more like a wikipedia article than an advert for Tony Bennett. I knew very little certainly about some of the content. However, it has also been clear that some information that could and should have been included has previously been kept out of the article. Also there were many claims made that whilst I would not say they were untrue, they were certainly distorting or bending the truth slightly so as to make the subject of this article appear more favourable. The Stuart Lubbock section I knew nothing about, but unfortunately now do. I have tried again with that section to make it way more balanced than it was previously. I have searched for and added additional sources, and also cleaned up how the sources are inserted. Which then leads on of course to other articles connected with the subject of this article, Tony Bennett such as the article about Stuart Lubbock and others which really do also need cleaning up if they are anyway similar to this. I had already cleaned up the CountyWatch article which also previously just read as an advert for the group.

If as I no doubt have, made any mistakes, please correct them. I need a rest now... ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved[edit]

I have taken the liberty of moving the hugely long messages that were placed on here to Tony Bennetts user page as most of the content was general comments about various aspects of wikipedia and about not just one article but different articles. The content was clogging up this page with discussion of stuff that was not relevant to this article specifically and given the lengthy messages I felt it was best to simply move it in its entireity rather than picking out bits and pieces, as they were mainly questions, comments, criticisms raised by one user that are best dealt with on that users own talk page. The content can be found in full, here - User talk:Tony Bennett. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation name change[edit]

Why has Solicitor, been replaced with Rights Adviser, for Anthony Bennett? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.221.173 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the occupation change made by Mr Bennett? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.221.173 (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BLP. Subjects of articles are perfectly entitled to edit articles about themselves.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I've protected this article for a week against non-autoconfirmed editors who just do not seem to understand our policy on reliable sources and especially in relation to biographies; these policues are not negotiatable. Edits may be requested during this time using the {{editprotected}} template, but in no way is this article going to become a venue for soapboxing. Any editor may also request comments on a proposed source here . --Rodhullandemu 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested protection. I guess our bullshit barometers are in sync. --Dynaflow babble 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harlowsafe (note 6 url)[edit]

Harlowsafe history doesn't mention mr Bennett, the link shows a page that's recently edited

Last amended by Cliff Moore on Tuesday March 03, 2009

http://www.harlowsave.coop/

http://www.harlowsave.coop/history.html

So I think it's best to either remove that information or find a reliable source.

22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Dunnowhy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnowhy (talk • contribs)

Dunnowhy (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the other stuff, it's minor, and wouldn't object if it went. --Rodhullandemu 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine McCann[edit]

While I agree that mentioning Madeleine McCann in the introductory section of the article without following it up is not strictly correct, I think it better that the article be reworked and so the contents list would read:

4. Private prosecutions
4.1 Death of Stuart Lubbock
4.2 Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

The paragraph concerning Stuart Lubbock in the introduction would be replaced by “Bennett started private prosecutions against Michael Barrymore in connection with the death of Stuart Lubbock and against Gerry and Kate McCann in respect of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.”

The section concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann would then be reinstated (and possibly expanded) at §4.2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.18 (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC) This article gives the impression that Anthony Bennett is a solicitor Anthony Bennett is not a solicitor,source SRA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.221.129 (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tony Bennett was a solicitor, but he is no longer a member of the Law Society. I have not yet had the opportunity to identify the exact year that his name dissappeared from the Law Society lists. Martinvl (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Tony Bennett has not had a solicitors practising certificate since 1999, thus making him not qualified to act as a solicitor, on the 15th October 2009 he voluntarly removed his name from the Law Society roll.Source Law Society.[reply]

Anthony Bennett And Carter Ruck[edit]

Anthony Bennett has taken a serious undertaking that he is not allowed to post, give links, encourage or allow his peers to post the aforementioned, on any website, which defames or libels the McCanns.

Mr Bennett has recently been posting very very libellous postings in a supposed private forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.157.211 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Most of the article "Active Resistance to Metrication" is about a single person, Bennett. However, two sentences within it purport to be about a group, beyond Bennett, and (until you get to the notes) aren't obviously sourced to ARM itself. These are:

  1. Active Resistance to Metrication (ARM) is a British pressure group, founded in June 2001 opposed to metrication in the United Kingdom.
  2. ARM are known for direct action tactics such as the removing or amending of road and footpath signs whose measurements are expressed in metric units only, which ARM says are illegal.

The first is sourced to a page at bbc.co.uk. The only mention of ARM within it is this:

Tony Bennett, who founded a group called Active Resistance to Metrication, was arrested six times, charged three times but only given one conviction, for which he received an absolute discharge.

Thus we have a reliable source for the claim that ARM, whatever it may be, was founded by Bennett. But for no more than that.

The second is sourced to ARM, not a disinterested source, so it doesn't count.

Google News provides zero hits for news coverage of ARM.

As no disinterested information has been adduced to suggest that ARM has any significance beyond Bennett, the article "Active Resistance to Metrication" gives a misleading impression. It should be turned into a redirect to the article on Bennett. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems. Bennett is certianly the mouthpiece for ARM. Martinvl (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems an entirely logical proceudre to me. Emeraude (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A week has gone by, and nobody has argued against this whereas two have supported it, so I'm about to make the changes. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please ensure that the link to the ARM website is in the Tony Bennett article. Martinvl (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's necessary, though I'm willing to be persuaded to the contrary. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having mentioned an organisation, iti s often a good idea to publish the link to that organisation so that people can form their own opinions. Moreover, somebody might want to get in touch with Bennett, or if they see the name "Tony Bennett", they can link the new reference with the Tony Bennett who is the founder of ARM (or alternatively check that it is not him). Martinvl (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is what a search engine is for; but if you want to add the link to "ARM" under "External links", go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page title - "politician"[edit]

Wouldn't he be better described/disambiguated as a "campaigner"? His profile, such as it is, rests more on his activities in relation to Stuart Lubbock/Michael Barrymore and the McCann case than it does on his reputation or stature as a politician of any serious sort. When it comes to party politics proper, according to the article he was once a local councillor about 40 years ago, which is the sum total of any formal positions he's held; other than that, he's held a few internal party posts in fringe groups over the years. N-HH talk/edits 13:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, but I have known of this person for many years as a politician and/or political party organiser. His "campaigning" is a relatively recent departure after he seems to have given up trying to make it as a politician. I think (poitician) sums up his career better than (campaigner) would, but in any case it's really rather redundant. The brackets are only there to distinguish him from other people with the same name and no one is going to type in the bracketed to find him. Emeraude (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the parentheticals in a page title inevitably, even if unintentionally, confer some kind of semi-formal status on people. Plus, more practically, we do need to use the best/clearest description we can that will help aim people to the page they are looking for, whether via the drop-down options that come up or on the main disambiguation page. As for which is the best such description, it's surely hard to argue that, objectively, his profile is greatest because of his Barrymore and McCann activities, and that his actions there are indeed those of a "campaigner" rather than of a "politician"? N-HH talk/edits 13:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barrymore/McCann is certainly what he is known for most recently (if he is known!?), but those are recent examples of his political activity. We need to cover the whole of his biography, not just the most recent. As I said, my knowledge of him (speaking as a political scientist) is through his involvement in a variety of political parties and political campaigns predating these by a long way. I'd suggest that Barrymore/McCann are developments of his political career. It's worth looking at versions of the article before January 2006 and the Barrymore case. Emeraude (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be better to disambiguate him by using his full name? Martinvl (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if readers are going to type in his full name looking for an article, which I doubt. Emeraude (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - readers would usually go to Tony Bennett and from there to the disambiguation page Anthony Bennett. In either case they would get to this page via a disambiguation page. Martinvl (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: that's how I got here, and when I got to the disambiguation page I was confused by which page was actually about this guy, since, as discussed, he is best known – to me at least, and I suspect most other people, if he is known at all – as "Tony Bennett" and as a campaigner or something like that; not as the "politician" with the name "Anthony Bennett". If you type in Tony Bennett, you don't even get the option via the drop-down suggestions of coming straight here; not only do you have to navigate through this three-stage process but struggle with an obscure name and description as you do so. Having him as "Tony Bennett (campaigner)" would surely make him easier to find for most people. N-HH talk/edits 11:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the hit counts of various Tony Bennett articles - the singer gets about 1200 per day - all the others combined do not mnanage that number per week! I suggest that this article gives Bennett's full name, but that on the disambiguation page he be identified as "Campaigner, particularly in respect of controversies surrounding Madeleine McCann, Stuart Lubbock and metrication". Martinvl (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "full name", do you mean literally "Anthony John Stuart Bennett"? That would surely compound rather than solve the underlying problems - yes it would mean we wouldn't need a possibly contentious parenthetical description for disambiguation but it would make the title even less recognisable (which, after all, is a key requirement of WP:TITLE). N-HH talk/edits 12:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mean "Anthony John Stuart Bennett", it might not solve the problem, but it certainly won't compound it. Lets face it, this article gets very few hits, most people will go for "Tony Bennett" (which we can't use) or "Anthony Bennett" which takes them straight to the disambiguation page. Whatever we use, most readers will have to navigate their way in so the most neutral way is to use his full name. Martinvl (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem as I expressed it was about lack of recognisability and the difficulty of navigating to the page due to the fact that the current title uses a less commonly seen/used version of his name and a more obscure parenthetical description. It seems rather obvious that switching to an even less commonly seen/used version of his name and removing any form of description at all compounds that fundamental problem as well as not solving it. It would also rather obviously go against naming policy and guidelines. Obviously the Tony Bennett page will keep that title, but having this guy at "Tony Bennett (campaigner)" will at least enable people typing Tony Bennett into the search box to see that name/title in the drop down options and click to this page immediately - that doesn't happen currently and would not happen with your proposal. And if they still end up taking the alternative route via the Anthony/Tony Bennett disambiguation page, at least the name there for this page will more clearly and immediately identify this person, with or without any additional description (which I agree should be added to the disambiguation page regardless). N-HH talk/edits 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten about going in via Google, so I have no objections to the change of name of the artcile. Martinvl (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the internal WP search box, whereby you get the option of all the other Tony Bennetts but not this one. I'm wondering whether to be bold and move it or whether it needs a more formal RM - there's no ringing endorsement so far for my suggestion, after all ... N-HH talk/edits 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Active Resistance to Metrication", again[edit]

I'm grateful to Boson for notifying me of the reappearance of an article on "Active Resistance to Metrication". (The article is currently at Active resistance to metrication.)

As you'll see above (and in its own history), "Active Resistance to Metrication" was previously redirected to this article on Bennett. I suggested this and nobody opposed it.

Of course it was imaginable that "Active Resistance to Metrication" would come to have increased significance and coverage and would then merit an article. It now has an article. This lists six sources. One is "Active Resistance to Metrication" itself; the others are:

So from sources independent of "Active Resistance to Metrication" itself that are cited in the article, we learn:

  • Bennett founded ARM.
  • In early 2002 (when the "Cybercast News Service" article was published), Bennett operated ARM.
  • In early 2002 (ditto), ARM was "independent". (The context strongly suggests that "independence" here means independence of UKIP.)

And that's all.

Slim pickings indeed. I suggest that (1) the current article on ARM is written in such a way as to suggest a significance for ARM that no sources yet adduced for the article back up; and therefore that (2) the current article on ARM should be turned back into a redirect to Bennett.

In the next few minutes, I shall notify the user who resuscitated the article (and any other user who subsequently edited it) to this discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC), slightly reworded 02:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to redirecting it again to here. A couple of brief news reports do not establish notability, especially when focused on the one person anyway. And while they may yet expand their repertoire, I can't help but notice that the relatively new user who recreated it kicked off a brief WP career with some quite bold edits on this topic, and hasn't really looked at much else besides. That said, as the ARM page does currently exist, it might be better to go through a formal AFD or something. N-HH talk/edits 08:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LFaraone has turned it back into a redirect. (See this.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anthony Bennett (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anthony Bennett (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) 02:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Bennett (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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Bennett_(Veritas_politician)&oldid=1199853018"