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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 March 2008. The result of the discussion was snow keep. |
Could whom ever has been working on this article shape it into a paragraph instead of a series of single sentences?-- Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the way this article has been put together; it focuses almost entirely on the negatives with regards to the subject, which is rather frowned upon under biographies of living persons guidelines. I'll make a few changes now to try and remove some of the worst of the soapboxing, but I'd advise other editors to work on that aspect and make this neutral as well. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is continually being changed back to a version that has been written using personal opinions, clearly against Wiki's policies. West Yorkshire Police have provided a balanced FACTUAL Wikipedia entry yet someone insists on changing it. Examples of certain things Sir Norman has done in the past being cited as being Controvertial for example, is OPINION and not fact. The current version (as of Sat 16 Feb) is direct from Sir Norman himself and IS FACT. Can this version remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.252.250 ( talk • contribs) -- Catgut ( talk) 11:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-stick to catching criminals rather than playing on wikipedia
(Please excuse the use of blocks capitals but I follow the poor style of the comment to which I respond in the interests of equal presentational force.)
How can the Police be so wrong?
Let us get the position of Wikipedea clear.
Wikipedia is NOT about FACTS; it IS about OPINIONS, just not about the opinions of the editors.
It should be NEUTRAL that means that editors do not make decisions about what is true or not but make it clear who’s opinion they are including.
A person’s statement about themselves is an OPINION, it may be true and it may be false. I would have expected the police, above all, to appreciate this point.
The Yorkshire Police’s view of what should appear on here (or of what is a fact) is an OPINION. To comply with ethos of Wikipedia it should not be posted by Yorkshire Police but can be posted by independent editors but they should express it as the opinion of the Yorkshire Police and cite authoritative references.
My advice to the Yorkshire Police, in response to their expressed concern that editors may be changing their edits, is to follow the Wikipedia advice. -
IF YOU DON’T WANT YOUR TEXT TO BE MERCILESSLY EDITED THEN DO NOT POST.
And please sign your posts in here. 83.104.57.103 ( talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This page has once again been changed back to the official version endorsed by Sir Norman Bettison. I am requesting that this page is now "locked down" to prevent further unauthorised malicious alterations which compromise Wikipedia's own policies on Living Person Biographies. Biographies should be factural and neutral, not drawing on negative and tabloid assertions. We have now fully complied with the Moderator's requests to provide a factually, objective version, instead of the official CV initially lifted from the West Yorkshire Police website. Again, we appeal to the Moderator to allow this version to remain as the official version, and further proof of the validity of this claim can be provided on request. Thank you for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webteam3 ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the definition of an "Official Version" ?
I would like to apply for that status for many of my opinions. 83.104.57.103 ( talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion of the changes you have made to the above article at the conflict of interest noticeboard, as it appears that you are making the changes from a position related to the subject of the article. Please read through the guidelines on conflict of interest. I'm not going to undo the change you've made to the article at present, but will note that I feel it does lean away from neutral point of view and that the previous version was in fact more neutral, providing a balance of information on the subject. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether to make further changes.
As to your requests that the article be locked, please note that article protection is only used to stabilize pages that are subject to edit wars or heavy vandalism, and is never used to protect an article at one editor's preferred version. All articles are free to be edited by other editors; once you hit the "save" button, that information is no longer yours, but the encyclopedia's, and can be worked on collaboratively.
Finally, you may want to look at our guidelines for citations as a guide to creating inline cites to properly show at the end of the page. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As recently as 26th March Bettison or his staff - they use the log-in webteam3 - have again tried to edit out the controversy section on the wikipedia debate and his pension whilst leaving more favourable egotistical material. What don't you understand about the meaning of conflict of interest?? Thank you to Gordon for spotting this attempt so promoptly and reverting it to the neutral version. 86.147.29.179 ( talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nwikipedia129.xml — Random832 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Times are also now covering the story http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3463489.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.166.58 ( talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Times story has been picked up by the TechDirt blog at http://techdirt.com/articles/20080302/224103399.shtml. Mike Masnick at TechDirt relates this incident to another one where the mayor of Florence is suing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.35.100 ( talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the format of the references to use actual footnote code instead of simple superscripts - the newspaper references themselves are insufficient (at the very least, the title of the article is necessary, and a page number would be helpful too). There was no use in the text of a superscript number "17", so that has been omitted from the numbering (with 18 from the previous version as 17, etc) — Random832 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In case you have trouble, the text of each footnote is in the source code of the page at the point where the number appears in the rendered version, rather than at the end in the references section. — Random832 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In engaging in such a farce, he has simply drawn attention to his shortcomings, rather than diverting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.143.240 ( talk) 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed references to his education since they cannot be verified other than by reference to the hagiography maintained on his force website which contains a strange error - Oxford University does not offer a Philosophy and Psychology degree - the correct title is Psychology and Philosophy. I find it hard to believe a genuine graduate wouldn't know the correct title of his degree Webspit ( talk) 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The links have turned into a bit of an out-takes collection: they need either incorporating into the article, or discarding:
I'm not sure the following is a reliable source, It's a samizdat site, not a newspaper.
This needs either using or binning. It seems to be there just to show he's a good guy.
Do we incorporate this story into the article?
Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 13:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
After Sir Norman's reported crybaby comments in The Telegraph, The Times, etc, I see no reason why Wikipedia should make the effort to create a complete biography of him. It should be reduced to "Sir Norman Bettison (born 3 January 1956, Rotherham, South Yorkshire) is a British career police officer. As of 2008 he is Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, the fourth largest Force in the country." and left at that. We're not here to create a puff piece about how wonderful he is. Obviously we shouldn't be allowing vandalism and negative bias either but it seems that the newspapers are implying that Wikipedia has a duty to heap praise on the subjects of articles. 79.68.126.251 ( talk) 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Should a local police official even have a biography on Wikipedia? 71.227.113.171 ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that the whole page should be stubbed! Should Wikipedia be used as a forum allowing the vain to blow their own trumpets and create their own myths? Mmotorway ( talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Norman-bettison.jpg removed pending check. The usability of the image doesn't currently appear to be sufficiently proven: see User talk:TJourney. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am deeply disappointed to see admins and respected editors warring under a semi protection. We all know how sensitive this article is at the moment, given coverage in the UK media. I've fully protected for 36 hours. Discussion on talk is needed please. Pedro : Chat 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article is no different in substance to either the Daily Telegraph article on the subject or the report in Police Review Magazine. It should be allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.2.195 ( talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Mail have removed the comment section - no doubt at the request of Norman Bettison's Press Office, so it should be OK to link there now. I suggest we do not link to any of the police blog sites as every piece of commentary is hostile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gordon is correct - it disappeared for a couple of hours this morning and then reappeared - free press rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 ( talk) 11:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A link is not necessary, only convenient to have, when citing a source that appears in print. —
Random832
14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Protection has been lifted, and Zanimum has edited out the bit on the wikipedia controversy. It got major UK press attention, and is one of the things this Police Chief will be remembered for. Shouldn't it be kept in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gordon - it is an absolute certainty that the Wikipedia issue will be mentioned without fail when Bettison is referenced in the UK, and will be counted as a significant event in his period as a Chief Constable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WebHamster and Gordon - it is now an essential part of the story, and should be referenced on the page 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) It has been quite a big story in Britain, it is something Bettison will forever be associated with, and not to metnion it when any search engine throws it up multiple times in relation to him seems very odd. 62.25.109.196 ( talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Full protection stops at 12:00 tomorrow. I am disapointed that Zanimum did not take more care and notice the protection, and therefore edited through it, but understand that he missed the padlock (it's easy enough I admit). However I will not edit war, but urge him to rollback his entry. And I would also urge others to continiue discussion even after the full protection ceases. Pedro : Chat 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the good thing is that Sir Norman has now called his staff off their foolish endeavour - there clearly has not been a rush by paid advisers such as webteam3 to rewrite the page. The media exposure and subsequent shaming should prevent it from happening again. And we can get back to ensuring the best possible objective biography is on here 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Moved here pending citation. We know Centrex was abolished in favour of the NPIA and that Peter Neyroud was the latter's first CEO, but is this otherwise a verifiable description of the causal chain of events?
He lost this job when Centrex was abolished, and in an open competition he was beaten by Chief Constable Peter Neyroud who became the new CEO of the National Policing Improvement Agency.
Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 10:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The accurate version is that he made such a mess of Centrex that it had to be phoenixed under a new name after they managed to get rid of him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webspit ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it certain that Bettison's Oxford M.A. is postgraduate (today's revision)? See Degrees of the University of Oxford. Grblundell ( talk) 22:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I did some edits [2] to rework the article, which are in accordance with my view of BLP, which I know isn't the most popular. Firstly, I wanted to better organize it and get rid of a separate section for "controversy", which is unnecessary. (New policy by definition is controversial) Notably I should point out my footnote pointing to the nasty comments on Wikipedia. At least to me, it seems less mean-spirited to point out to the reader directly that some idiot was repeatedly reverting this article to a really not encyclopedic version that lambasted Bettison, and that's the reason why he had his people watching the article, than to just suggest he was whitewashing his article without saying why. Even though it means I quote the Daily Mail's "greedy, vain moron" quote (in turn quoted from the edit war) in the footnote. As an inclusionist I am a proponent of balancing articles by more information and a sympathetic context rather than trying to chop everything out that sounds like it might be bad.
I took the same approach in elaborating his published editorials. I don't think it's really fair to mention just a headline from an opinion piece without going into what the person believes in enough detail that the reader gets the gist of the argument. Wnt ( talk) 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added factual material arising from the Hillsborough Independent Panel - and a section on Bettison's alleged activity in editing his own Wiki page. However I've also removed a couple of witty observations about Bettison's 'honours' - please don't give Bettison an excuse to sterilise his page of all critical content on the basis of acts of vandalism. There's more than enough factual material to shame him without need to play with the truth the way that he appears to have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Morrison ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 September 2012 (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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 March 2008. The result of the discussion was snow keep. |
Could whom ever has been working on this article shape it into a paragraph instead of a series of single sentences?-- Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the way this article has been put together; it focuses almost entirely on the negatives with regards to the subject, which is rather frowned upon under biographies of living persons guidelines. I'll make a few changes now to try and remove some of the worst of the soapboxing, but I'd advise other editors to work on that aspect and make this neutral as well. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is continually being changed back to a version that has been written using personal opinions, clearly against Wiki's policies. West Yorkshire Police have provided a balanced FACTUAL Wikipedia entry yet someone insists on changing it. Examples of certain things Sir Norman has done in the past being cited as being Controvertial for example, is OPINION and not fact. The current version (as of Sat 16 Feb) is direct from Sir Norman himself and IS FACT. Can this version remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.252.250 ( talk • contribs) -- Catgut ( talk) 11:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-stick to catching criminals rather than playing on wikipedia
(Please excuse the use of blocks capitals but I follow the poor style of the comment to which I respond in the interests of equal presentational force.)
How can the Police be so wrong?
Let us get the position of Wikipedea clear.
Wikipedia is NOT about FACTS; it IS about OPINIONS, just not about the opinions of the editors.
It should be NEUTRAL that means that editors do not make decisions about what is true or not but make it clear who’s opinion they are including.
A person’s statement about themselves is an OPINION, it may be true and it may be false. I would have expected the police, above all, to appreciate this point.
The Yorkshire Police’s view of what should appear on here (or of what is a fact) is an OPINION. To comply with ethos of Wikipedia it should not be posted by Yorkshire Police but can be posted by independent editors but they should express it as the opinion of the Yorkshire Police and cite authoritative references.
My advice to the Yorkshire Police, in response to their expressed concern that editors may be changing their edits, is to follow the Wikipedia advice. -
IF YOU DON’T WANT YOUR TEXT TO BE MERCILESSLY EDITED THEN DO NOT POST.
And please sign your posts in here. 83.104.57.103 ( talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This page has once again been changed back to the official version endorsed by Sir Norman Bettison. I am requesting that this page is now "locked down" to prevent further unauthorised malicious alterations which compromise Wikipedia's own policies on Living Person Biographies. Biographies should be factural and neutral, not drawing on negative and tabloid assertions. We have now fully complied with the Moderator's requests to provide a factually, objective version, instead of the official CV initially lifted from the West Yorkshire Police website. Again, we appeal to the Moderator to allow this version to remain as the official version, and further proof of the validity of this claim can be provided on request. Thank you for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webteam3 ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the definition of an "Official Version" ?
I would like to apply for that status for many of my opinions. 83.104.57.103 ( talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion of the changes you have made to the above article at the conflict of interest noticeboard, as it appears that you are making the changes from a position related to the subject of the article. Please read through the guidelines on conflict of interest. I'm not going to undo the change you've made to the article at present, but will note that I feel it does lean away from neutral point of view and that the previous version was in fact more neutral, providing a balance of information on the subject. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether to make further changes.
As to your requests that the article be locked, please note that article protection is only used to stabilize pages that are subject to edit wars or heavy vandalism, and is never used to protect an article at one editor's preferred version. All articles are free to be edited by other editors; once you hit the "save" button, that information is no longer yours, but the encyclopedia's, and can be worked on collaboratively.
Finally, you may want to look at our guidelines for citations as a guide to creating inline cites to properly show at the end of the page. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As recently as 26th March Bettison or his staff - they use the log-in webteam3 - have again tried to edit out the controversy section on the wikipedia debate and his pension whilst leaving more favourable egotistical material. What don't you understand about the meaning of conflict of interest?? Thank you to Gordon for spotting this attempt so promoptly and reverting it to the neutral version. 86.147.29.179 ( talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nwikipedia129.xml — Random832 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Times are also now covering the story http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3463489.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.166.58 ( talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Times story has been picked up by the TechDirt blog at http://techdirt.com/articles/20080302/224103399.shtml. Mike Masnick at TechDirt relates this incident to another one where the mayor of Florence is suing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.35.100 ( talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the format of the references to use actual footnote code instead of simple superscripts - the newspaper references themselves are insufficient (at the very least, the title of the article is necessary, and a page number would be helpful too). There was no use in the text of a superscript number "17", so that has been omitted from the numbering (with 18 from the previous version as 17, etc) — Random832 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In case you have trouble, the text of each footnote is in the source code of the page at the point where the number appears in the rendered version, rather than at the end in the references section. — Random832 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In engaging in such a farce, he has simply drawn attention to his shortcomings, rather than diverting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.143.240 ( talk) 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed references to his education since they cannot be verified other than by reference to the hagiography maintained on his force website which contains a strange error - Oxford University does not offer a Philosophy and Psychology degree - the correct title is Psychology and Philosophy. I find it hard to believe a genuine graduate wouldn't know the correct title of his degree Webspit ( talk) 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The links have turned into a bit of an out-takes collection: they need either incorporating into the article, or discarding:
I'm not sure the following is a reliable source, It's a samizdat site, not a newspaper.
This needs either using or binning. It seems to be there just to show he's a good guy.
Do we incorporate this story into the article?
Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 13:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
After Sir Norman's reported crybaby comments in The Telegraph, The Times, etc, I see no reason why Wikipedia should make the effort to create a complete biography of him. It should be reduced to "Sir Norman Bettison (born 3 January 1956, Rotherham, South Yorkshire) is a British career police officer. As of 2008 he is Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, the fourth largest Force in the country." and left at that. We're not here to create a puff piece about how wonderful he is. Obviously we shouldn't be allowing vandalism and negative bias either but it seems that the newspapers are implying that Wikipedia has a duty to heap praise on the subjects of articles. 79.68.126.251 ( talk) 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Should a local police official even have a biography on Wikipedia? 71.227.113.171 ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that the whole page should be stubbed! Should Wikipedia be used as a forum allowing the vain to blow their own trumpets and create their own myths? Mmotorway ( talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Norman-bettison.jpg removed pending check. The usability of the image doesn't currently appear to be sufficiently proven: see User talk:TJourney. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am deeply disappointed to see admins and respected editors warring under a semi protection. We all know how sensitive this article is at the moment, given coverage in the UK media. I've fully protected for 36 hours. Discussion on talk is needed please. Pedro : Chat 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article is no different in substance to either the Daily Telegraph article on the subject or the report in Police Review Magazine. It should be allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.2.195 ( talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Mail have removed the comment section - no doubt at the request of Norman Bettison's Press Office, so it should be OK to link there now. I suggest we do not link to any of the police blog sites as every piece of commentary is hostile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gordon is correct - it disappeared for a couple of hours this morning and then reappeared - free press rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 ( talk) 11:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A link is not necessary, only convenient to have, when citing a source that appears in print. —
Random832
14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Protection has been lifted, and Zanimum has edited out the bit on the wikipedia controversy. It got major UK press attention, and is one of the things this Police Chief will be remembered for. Shouldn't it be kept in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gordon - it is an absolute certainty that the Wikipedia issue will be mentioned without fail when Bettison is referenced in the UK, and will be counted as a significant event in his period as a Chief Constable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WebHamster and Gordon - it is now an essential part of the story, and should be referenced on the page 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) It has been quite a big story in Britain, it is something Bettison will forever be associated with, and not to metnion it when any search engine throws it up multiple times in relation to him seems very odd. 62.25.109.196 ( talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Full protection stops at 12:00 tomorrow. I am disapointed that Zanimum did not take more care and notice the protection, and therefore edited through it, but understand that he missed the padlock (it's easy enough I admit). However I will not edit war, but urge him to rollback his entry. And I would also urge others to continiue discussion even after the full protection ceases. Pedro : Chat 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the good thing is that Sir Norman has now called his staff off their foolish endeavour - there clearly has not been a rush by paid advisers such as webteam3 to rewrite the page. The media exposure and subsequent shaming should prevent it from happening again. And we can get back to ensuring the best possible objective biography is on here 212.137.45.109 ( talk) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Moved here pending citation. We know Centrex was abolished in favour of the NPIA and that Peter Neyroud was the latter's first CEO, but is this otherwise a verifiable description of the causal chain of events?
He lost this job when Centrex was abolished, and in an open competition he was beaten by Chief Constable Peter Neyroud who became the new CEO of the National Policing Improvement Agency.
Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 10:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The accurate version is that he made such a mess of Centrex that it had to be phoenixed under a new name after they managed to get rid of him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webspit ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it certain that Bettison's Oxford M.A. is postgraduate (today's revision)? See Degrees of the University of Oxford. Grblundell ( talk) 22:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I did some edits [2] to rework the article, which are in accordance with my view of BLP, which I know isn't the most popular. Firstly, I wanted to better organize it and get rid of a separate section for "controversy", which is unnecessary. (New policy by definition is controversial) Notably I should point out my footnote pointing to the nasty comments on Wikipedia. At least to me, it seems less mean-spirited to point out to the reader directly that some idiot was repeatedly reverting this article to a really not encyclopedic version that lambasted Bettison, and that's the reason why he had his people watching the article, than to just suggest he was whitewashing his article without saying why. Even though it means I quote the Daily Mail's "greedy, vain moron" quote (in turn quoted from the edit war) in the footnote. As an inclusionist I am a proponent of balancing articles by more information and a sympathetic context rather than trying to chop everything out that sounds like it might be bad.
I took the same approach in elaborating his published editorials. I don't think it's really fair to mention just a headline from an opinion piece without going into what the person believes in enough detail that the reader gets the gist of the argument. Wnt ( talk) 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added factual material arising from the Hillsborough Independent Panel - and a section on Bettison's alleged activity in editing his own Wiki page. However I've also removed a couple of witty observations about Bettison's 'honours' - please don't give Bettison an excuse to sterilise his page of all critical content on the basis of acts of vandalism. There's more than enough factual material to shame him without need to play with the truth the way that he appears to have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Morrison ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)