This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have today removed 'although some reviewers who? have called it "disappointing" and accuse the book of being too long and containing too much "padding".' from the Historian section. On examining the citation given, it led to this page: http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0099548836/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addTwoStar&showViewpoints=0. The author of that claim has simply looked the book up on Amazon and clicked on the page for the most negative customer reviews (two stars), of which there are two. These are apparently the sum of the "some reviewers" quoted. Since this is hardly legitimate peer review (as opposed to the positive review cited in the TLS), it lacks sufficient credibility to merit citation on Wikipedia; otherwise, one might also feel the need to cite the eight five-star or four four-star customer reviews available on Amazon as well. If a negative review from an established and respectable source can be found to balance the tone of the section, all to the good; Amazon customer reviews are surely not good enough. Moreover, as a matter of strict etiquette, the author has paraphrased the reviews but still used quotation marks: the first review is headed "Disappointment" and the second comments that "he pads it out with interesting critiques on the Hundred Years War"; this becomes "disappointing" and 'too much "padding"'. Quotation marks suggest exact quotation, and it is misleading to use them for paraphrasing, particularly when the writer adds in a value judgment such as 'too much' and attaches this to one inaccurately quoted word. Back and Forth ( talk) 11:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
@ Over the Orwell: has expressed concerns to @ JASpencer: that the article "reads as if it was written by a friend, relative or Tory party activist." Rather than getting into edit warring or battleground territory, perhaps it would be sensible to work through any issues here on the talk page. I know that OtO would like to see a critical review of The Scourging Angel, and I am looking through the various newspapers and literary supplements at the moment to see if there are any. The lack of a website when Gummer was first elected seems pretty trivial imho, and WP:UNDUE; it certainly didn't make it into any of the major news organs (although I'm still searching that, too.) Anything anyone wants to add? Blackberry Sorbet ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I intend to update this in accordance with wp:BLP using wp:reliable sources, generally avoiding wp:primary, sticking to wp:NPOV and highlighting notable achievements. In practice, I don't usually get involved in disputes with experienced editors but feel free to contact me, discuss or apply wp:BRD. Regards JRPG ( talk) 22:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This section relies for its main description on a blog by a local Ipswich Conservative councilor which apart from being a blog fails all the tests of a wp:rs. As fully expected the bill failed to become law and since unless I’m wrong, the effort wasn’t reported elsewhere the section isn't significant. It may deserve a mention as a technique in Private member's bill if a wp:rs can be found. JRPG ( talk) 22:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Dtellett:" First friendly greetings and I've noted your last edit reason. When I first looked at this article in January it appeared to me to be hagiography which I’ve tried to make fair but much more
wp:npov. I note your comment on foodbanks “despun” Whatever I think of foodbanks, it seems fair to include Gummer’s reference
We have cut the benefit bill by £10 million by tackling fraud, but we know there are people who have been on benefit for years who know how to use the system – while those who really need urgent help, the kind of people that Beveridge was thinking of when he set it up are left struggling. and a little unkind to suggest the new version is 'de-spun'. Had you overlooked Gummer’s own statement or have I misunderstood? En passant Gummer appears not to distinguish between £10 billion and £10 million but I thought I'd let that go! Regards JRPG ( talk) 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The 1st line of the section on Sancroft contains a dead link to a wp:primary source which makes extravagant claims about the business expansion! The only reason for not removing this sentence altogether is that there is a much more significant article in the Telegraph which shows that Gummer remains a shareholder and this is likely to be of interest. JRPG ( talk) 20:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Whilst I am well aware of the effort made by many MPs to draw attention to bills which HMG hasn't allowed time for, public debt management died the usual death. The BBC makes no connection between the two and doesn't mention Gummer. It seems to me that this is Synthesis of published material, albeit well intentioned, which we are required to remove. The BBC has attributed an entirely different motive for the bill. Regards JRPG ( talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Ben Gummer. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
According to this link, Ben Gummer is Catholic. This does not appear to be the case. Gummer's father Sir John Gummer converted to Catholicism when Ben was 14 years old. The link is not entirely accurate and there appears to be no evidence that Ben Gummer is anything other than Anglican, the religion in which he was raised. The Tablet is a reliable source generally but ........ Quis separabit? 16:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Gummer. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have today removed 'although some reviewers who? have called it "disappointing" and accuse the book of being too long and containing too much "padding".' from the Historian section. On examining the citation given, it led to this page: http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0099548836/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addTwoStar&showViewpoints=0. The author of that claim has simply looked the book up on Amazon and clicked on the page for the most negative customer reviews (two stars), of which there are two. These are apparently the sum of the "some reviewers" quoted. Since this is hardly legitimate peer review (as opposed to the positive review cited in the TLS), it lacks sufficient credibility to merit citation on Wikipedia; otherwise, one might also feel the need to cite the eight five-star or four four-star customer reviews available on Amazon as well. If a negative review from an established and respectable source can be found to balance the tone of the section, all to the good; Amazon customer reviews are surely not good enough. Moreover, as a matter of strict etiquette, the author has paraphrased the reviews but still used quotation marks: the first review is headed "Disappointment" and the second comments that "he pads it out with interesting critiques on the Hundred Years War"; this becomes "disappointing" and 'too much "padding"'. Quotation marks suggest exact quotation, and it is misleading to use them for paraphrasing, particularly when the writer adds in a value judgment such as 'too much' and attaches this to one inaccurately quoted word. Back and Forth ( talk) 11:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
@ Over the Orwell: has expressed concerns to @ JASpencer: that the article "reads as if it was written by a friend, relative or Tory party activist." Rather than getting into edit warring or battleground territory, perhaps it would be sensible to work through any issues here on the talk page. I know that OtO would like to see a critical review of The Scourging Angel, and I am looking through the various newspapers and literary supplements at the moment to see if there are any. The lack of a website when Gummer was first elected seems pretty trivial imho, and WP:UNDUE; it certainly didn't make it into any of the major news organs (although I'm still searching that, too.) Anything anyone wants to add? Blackberry Sorbet ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I intend to update this in accordance with wp:BLP using wp:reliable sources, generally avoiding wp:primary, sticking to wp:NPOV and highlighting notable achievements. In practice, I don't usually get involved in disputes with experienced editors but feel free to contact me, discuss or apply wp:BRD. Regards JRPG ( talk) 22:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This section relies for its main description on a blog by a local Ipswich Conservative councilor which apart from being a blog fails all the tests of a wp:rs. As fully expected the bill failed to become law and since unless I’m wrong, the effort wasn’t reported elsewhere the section isn't significant. It may deserve a mention as a technique in Private member's bill if a wp:rs can be found. JRPG ( talk) 22:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Dtellett:" First friendly greetings and I've noted your last edit reason. When I first looked at this article in January it appeared to me to be hagiography which I’ve tried to make fair but much more
wp:npov. I note your comment on foodbanks “despun” Whatever I think of foodbanks, it seems fair to include Gummer’s reference
We have cut the benefit bill by £10 million by tackling fraud, but we know there are people who have been on benefit for years who know how to use the system – while those who really need urgent help, the kind of people that Beveridge was thinking of when he set it up are left struggling. and a little unkind to suggest the new version is 'de-spun'. Had you overlooked Gummer’s own statement or have I misunderstood? En passant Gummer appears not to distinguish between £10 billion and £10 million but I thought I'd let that go! Regards JRPG ( talk) 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The 1st line of the section on Sancroft contains a dead link to a wp:primary source which makes extravagant claims about the business expansion! The only reason for not removing this sentence altogether is that there is a much more significant article in the Telegraph which shows that Gummer remains a shareholder and this is likely to be of interest. JRPG ( talk) 20:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Whilst I am well aware of the effort made by many MPs to draw attention to bills which HMG hasn't allowed time for, public debt management died the usual death. The BBC makes no connection between the two and doesn't mention Gummer. It seems to me that this is Synthesis of published material, albeit well intentioned, which we are required to remove. The BBC has attributed an entirely different motive for the bill. Regards JRPG ( talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Ben Gummer. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
According to this link, Ben Gummer is Catholic. This does not appear to be the case. Gummer's father Sir John Gummer converted to Catholicism when Ben was 14 years old. The link is not entirely accurate and there appears to be no evidence that Ben Gummer is anything other than Anglican, the religion in which he was raised. The Tablet is a reliable source generally but ........ Quis separabit? 16:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Gummer. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)