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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coventry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CoventryWikipedia:WikiProject CoventryTemplate:WikiProject CoventryCoventry articles
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 sourcedmust 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.
'Guardian makes no mention' - is it OR or UNDUE, etc ?[edit]
I originally put a CN on what was a hard-to-verify sweeping statement about all its coverage. As nobody has supplied a citation for this (including when adding citations for another CN), I've reworded the statement so it's now verifiable (partly by adding the WP:WEASEL word 'some'). The only problem is, much and all as I love the fact that somebody tried to point out The Guardian's interesting behaviour, I suspect it's quite likely to be in violation of one of our myriad rules, perhaps WP:OR, perhaps WP:UNDUE, or whatever. Since I like it, I won't be removing it myself. But I think others might want to have a look at it to see whether it should stand, or be modified, or be deleted. (Incidentally I'm currently just relying on my memory about the sample article and the fact that nobody has challenged what was said about the editorial - I may later check them more thoroughly, but I don't have time right now, and I may forget later, so somebody else might care to check instead of me).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I have decided the sentence needs to be removed mainly per WP:NPOV, and possibly also other rules such as WP:OR. It is an implicit criticism of the Guardian, a criticism not made by any Reliable Source, but instead introduced by a Wikipedia editor, and supported only by the 'research' of Wikipedians. Also, the Guardian is not given an opportunity to reply. And it is largely irrelevant to the subject matter of the article, since it's telling us something about the Guardian rather than about Phil Shiner, so it's probably also something like WP:UNDUE. So I will now remove it.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
prominent public platform from which to promote his false accusations, and lent them credibility[edit]
This is blatantly WP:OR. While your analysis may be correct, it still requires a reliable source to explicitly state the same before we may include it. Keri (t·c) 14:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alekksandr, it appears from this webpage and this one that Shiner was indeed a professor at Middlesex in 2014, though I'm not clear when he left. Best wishes JezGrove (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of opinions of Kemp and Mercer about Shami Chakrabarti.[edit]
For some reason, the article is being used to air the cherry-picked opinions of two former army officers, Richard Kemp and Johnny Mercer, both who hold rather pronounced political views, about Shami Chakrabarti, who was Shadow Attorney General. The opinions have been taken from an article in the The Telegraph. Perhaps if, given the source, what Chakrabarti said about Shiner had been detailed, including the opinions might have been justified, but the case for including opinions about Chakrabarti of that kind and in that way in an article about Phil Shiner is tenuous, particularly since BLP material is supposed to be balanced and written conservatively. I deleted the material. Wee Curry Monster re-added it, stating in justification that it is "relevant cited content." ← ZScarpia 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it is relevant cited content. Johnny Mercer was a long time critic of Phil Shiner, he is also an MP and has been twice the Minister for Veteran Affairs. Richard Kemp is also a well known commentator on military affairs. Shami Chakrabarti continued to defend Shiner after he had been found guilty of multiple examples of both criminal and unethical conduct. It's been edited since but her defence of him was originally added to the article, which made adding the rebuttal relevant. WCMemail 07:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest that the material is re-written to follow the pattern of the source, describing Chakrabarti's involvement with Shiner and outlining what she had to say, then attaching the criticisms, giving some kind of indication of why the two opinions have any significance at all. Though the two, Kemp in particlular, may be useful rentagobs for the newspapers, I don't think the encyclopaedic quality of the article is improved by including their opinions. The way the article reads at the moment is that it is being used to shoehorn in a couple of polemical opinions about a person other than the subject of the article from two ex-officers, one who'd been a captain and one a colonel (both who happen to to have mixed reputations and both who probably have axes to grind). ← ZScarpia 10:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you have strongly held opinions about two individuals and are not the person to write neutrally or objectively on what they have to say. I'll look to further community input but I'm left with the strong impression you should probably not be editing in this area at all, possibly not even suited to Wikipedia as a whole. WCMemail 11:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
