Talk:Aidan Burley

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

London 2012 Olympics[edit]

On 27th July 2012, during the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, Burley tweeted: "The most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen - more than Beijing, the capital of a communist state! Welfare tribute next?" provoking fierce criticism from other users.(https://twitter.com/AidanBurleyMP). He followed up the tweet with a second reading "Thank God the athletes have arrived! Now we can move on from leftie multi-cultural crap. Bring back red arrows, Shakespeare and the Stones! "

This could be one to watch!

Untitled[edit]

Studied for a degree seems to imply he failed to graduate - is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.118.21 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Alma Mater?[edit]

As Burley failed to graduate from St. John's College Oxford is it not misleading to list it as his Alma Mater, particularly as he was essentially thrown out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.7.26 (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics tweet / Media POV witch hunt[edit]

I've semi-protected the article per WP:BLP. Let's wait until there's some sources beyond Twitter before we put the Olympics opening tweet controversy in. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While researching conservatism in the UK, I ran across this article. I made some draconian edits to this section, as it exhibits an unacceptable level of recentism. I will refrain from making granny-like cautionary statements and simply state that it happened YESTERDAY. TreacherousWays (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is in the news:
"An hour later, when the athletes from the competing countries started their parade, he wrote: “Thank God the athletes have arrived! Now we can move on from leftie multi-cultural crap. Bring back red arrows, Shakespeare and the Stones!” Downing Street reportedly distanced itself from his comments, which were derided by others on Twitter."
London 2012: 'Nazi stag party’ MP Aidan Burley attacks multicultural Opening Ceremony - in the Daily Telegraph
"David Cameron will face pressure to remove the Tory whip from the Conservative MP Aidan Burley after he tweeted that the Olympics opening ceremony was "multicultural crap".
Burley, who was sacked as a ministerial aide last year after he took part in a Nazi-themed stag party in the French Alps, described Danny Boyle's work as "the most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen".
Downing Street sources moved quickly to distance themselves from Burley's tweets. "Clearly we don't agree," one source said." Conservative MP Aidan Burley, who was sacked as a ministerial aide for attending Nazi-themed stag party, rails against Danny Boyle's work on Twitter - in the Guardian
When broadsheets on right and left aren't happy, it's a thing. (Also, Political Scrapbook - a blog but a serious / well-researched one) provides pics of the multicultural family and asks: is this what Aidan Burley found offensive?
Not trying to mix in by adding these sources to the page now it's semi-protected, but it's not just a Twitter thing. SeraphinaWinsham (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of sources online now and I see it has been duly updated. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless he is sacked as a result (ie it becomes a major point in his life and career), or there is some other significant and notable impact, this section is far too long compared with the rest of the article. Looking a lot like WP:RECENTISM to me, because if it disappears from the news tomorrow then it's going to need shortening. Halsteadk (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut out a lot of the ifs, buts and maybes that seem to have gotten in there. I have a feeling this will be notable anyway, whether or not he's sacked. But it'd be handy to give it a bit of a wait until Monday to see what happens. Maybe a short parag on the press reaction might be worthwhile though? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you're censuring editing, a request: it's not a 'twitter controversy,' which is a dumb title that tells the reader nothing and fails to address why his remarks were controversial. It's a 'multiculturalism controversy'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.203.221 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried, but it looks like this is recentism city just now. Any one fancy trying to work a way out of this one? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly agree with Tom Morris. The problem is people are using instant tweets from Burley and his opponents rather than considered journalism from respectable sources. The section is too long. JRPG (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Past my bed time now but the Indie has an article which I think should replace the primary source tweets. If anyone wants to use it ..go ahead JRPG (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion piece fwiw. Not sure it'd be the best source in the world. There are better I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't done anything wrong. This is a media witch hunt. Unless there is proof of actual Nazism then please offer it. Otherwise this is just slander. Wikipedia is being used to silence reasonable criticism. It is not a crime for a politician to express an opinion. Please be careful with this wikipedia page, it will obviously attract many left wing trolls and agitators who will try to smear Aidan Burley, a good and honest MP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.156.76 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the article contains nothing but the actual tweets made by Burley and the reaction to them in reliable news sources. He is a high profile individual and can hardly complain if his idiocy is reported as such. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the typical left wing agitator chimes in. I demand you recuse yourself from editing as your POV (referring to his comments as "idiocy") has already been made clear. 174.54.34.65 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit less of this sort of thing, please. Play the ball and not the man in these discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the direct references to Nazism were vandalism edits from an IP user (rather ironically...). Perhaps if you contributed to the article it would help? Just do as most people are trying to do and avoid bias and ensure the article has a NPOV. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut down this section by removing some poorly sourced speculation and the comments from David Winnick. Lord Prescott's comments can stay for now as he's a fairly major figure, and Gavin Barwell is a fellow Conservative which makes his criticism more significant; but Winnick is just another Labour MP. Frankly, the section is probably still too long, but at least now it looks slightly more reasonable. Robofish (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree - although as this develops I think we might get a better idea of the consequences. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to Robofish's version for now - it would be helpful if editors who wish to include lots of detail in the article could contribute to the discussion on this talk page as well - no one's suggesting that information isn't sourced or that quotes aren't verifiable. The notability of the quotes from a WP:RECENTISM perspective is, however, significantly questionable. I am entirely convinced that there is merit in a section in the article - but what we've got is probably too long anyway, particularly once the coverage becomes chip papers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipeadia is an international encyclopaedia. It should be stated that the toast to "the thought processes and ideology of the third Reich” were not meant seriously because this might not currently be clear to german, french and other audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.83.177 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules exclude editorialising. To make any such statement we need a reliable source instead of which he appears to have blamed friends. I always include a person's right of reply but in this case it doesn't help. He has never suggested it was a joke. A court case is imminent in France. JRPG (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Daily Mail[edit]

According to WP:Suggested sources one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun."
According to WP:BLPSOURCES, Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Whilst I think the Nazi incident is significant, we need to replace the Mail. JRPG (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aidan_Burley&oldid=1206482885"