Talk:Brian Anderson (British boxer)

Section blanking of later career

This page has twice had sections blanked despite them citing reliable sources, including official government reports and the BBC. If there are problems with the accuracy of the information provided in these sources, or the context in which they are used, please discuss those issues here before deleting these sections again. JezGrove (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This page has been recently updated to include the later career of Brian Anderson (boxer) Unfortunately whilst not intended this now show a distinct negative bias. There is little context given in what is written which is misleading and much of it unqualified with reference linked to Web pages that don't exist. Relevant facts are missing such as when he took over at HMP Doncaster as this would determin is he was responsible for other concerns that have been raised. References to a recent article written in Private eye cannot be relied as reliable sources as the author gained at least part of his material from Linked In! It was a mistake to delete sections of the page and that won't be repeated but I would like to add to the bio using some of the existing references to make it more balanced. My offer to speak with the author JezGrove directly remains open

Kind Regards

Brian

Bganderson1961 (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bganderson1961. This article, like all wikipedia articles relies on what is reported in relaible sources, not on personal experience. If you think that Private Eye is not a WP:RS, you should raise that at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'd also point out that, while Wikipedia encourages dialogue between editors, it's usually pereferable to have this in a public forum, rather than on a one-to-one basis where "someone speaks to someone else". Thank you for your continued co-operation. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bganderson1961 - I'm getting a little confused here, as I've been responding on my talk page to another editor called Banderson1961 who claims to be the person the article is about. Please feel free to read my replies to him there, but it would be best if any comments about the content of the main page are posted here where everyone who looks at this article's page can find them. JezGrove (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

F.w.i.w. see also my talk page User talk:DVdm#edits. - DVdm (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello both and thank you for your comments. This response is for JezGrove. I'm sorry for the confusion both accounts are mine I couldn't remember my log in details so created another account. I am more than happy to have this discussion in a public forum and have no problem with expressing my personal interest. All Im asking is that some more relevant facts are included in the page so as to provide a balance. I feel like I am being bullied by you I don't see why anyone would have a problem in doing this. The truth is that you don't know very much about me but you believe that by pulling together targeted details from a random collection of reports and stories represents a biography. I always believed that Wikipedia was 'king' However, given this experience I am no longer a believer. Is there an agenda that I am not aware of? Had you undertaken any proper research even he had used more from his original source a more balanced bio could have been produced. I would like to ask you if the catalysts for the addition to the bio was the article in the Private Eye as the two seem vey aligned both in content and timing. I have ask several others to read the page all of whom like me feel that it is very biased. Before the additions this was a page about my boxing career. I understand that what I do might be in the public interest but why you have seemingly worked so had at making it into something different. There can be no way that this can pas the neutral point of view test! With reference to the Private eye I have no problem with the magazine per se and I am not saying that generally it is not a reliable source. But given the author of the article wrote to me serval times via Linked InI know that he had taken information from my Linked In account. If this is what is referred to as a living bio should I not be afforded some respect and protection! It is easy to pool together negative comments about anybody who has had the strength of convictions to take on a public role. There will always be things that go wrong that allows those who do not understand their commitment to 'throw stones'; is Wikipedia now just a platform for throwing stones. I have been to the point and honest with you and I hope you don't take it as rudeness but this is my life! I admit that I am a little naive but I know what is right. So what happens now are you JezGrove prepared to add more balanced content because I have asked you politely or are there other options open to me. Is there an adjudicator who can look at what JezGrove has written and compare and contract it with my amendments. Please let me know what I ca do next

Kind Regards Brian

Bganderson1961 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not "bullying you" or "throwing stones", Mr Anderson! In fact I've gone out of my way to help you. I think maybe I should just let you carry on on your own and see how you get on. But you may in fact get blocked, as you have what is called a "sockpuppet" account. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Martinevans123 you did not write the article and I wasn't referring to you sorry my mistake in drafting my note

Regards Brian Bganderson1961 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

should have said also that I genuinely appreciate your support please continue with your involvement

Kind Regards Brian Bganderson1961 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you need to reconsider the comments directed towards User:JezGrove, who has been editing here, in good faith, and in the way that Wikipedia expects. I'm sure that he equally has no intention of "bullying you" or "throwing stones". Wikipedia has strict policies regarding a reliance on reliable published sources. I realise that you may be unfamiliar with these. But the fact that you are, apparently, the subject of this article, makes your position quite difficult, if not impossible. I would urge you to demonstrate your good faith by directly asking, yourself, for advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Bganderson1961 / Banderson1961, I sincerely believe that I have very politely explained on my talk page that I have no hidden agenda and that my edits have all been made in good faith. I have even apologised for being slow in responding to a comment you posted on my talk page which was timed at 03:55 here in the UK (I’m not sure where in the world you are) even though I was working on the response (which I posted at 08:39) when you had sent a second message at 08:30 criticising me for my slow response and saying “Yesterday when I was editing your contributions to the bio your responses were immediate. It is of significant note that I have not received any response from you although I acknowledge that you might be simply taking the day off!”

On each occasion you have responded by accusing me of deliberate bias. In response to the only example you have given so far of a problem with the article (which you posted on my talk page) I have acknowledged that the sources concerning your appointment (not added by me) do not specifically state the date on which you became Governor of HMP Doncaster, and that I was therefore unaware that the unfortunate death that occurred there had happened so shortly afterwards, and I agreed that if your dates are correct (you didn’t specify your start date or provide a source) that my edit could therefore be misleading. I haven’t yet amended the article because I suggested on my own talk page, which as noted above you have previously posted comments on, that “The best way forward is for you to give specific examples on the article’s own Talk page of sentences in the article that you feel are incorrect / unbalanced together with any further information that you believe should be included in them. I am sorry if you feel that my edits have been unbalanced, but I’m sure that all of the issues can be addressed and resolved amicably”. So far you haven’t done so.

Finally, it is completely untrue that prior to my edits the page was only about your boxing career. As I have noted above (and, again, on my talk page), I used existing sources already cited on the page to expand on your appointment as Governor of HMP Doncaster – including extensive quotes that I have already pointed out to you on my talk page, and which I believe cannot be construed as being negative towards you and your achievements. If there are references cited on the page with redundant links, I am certain that I didn’t add them to the page.

I reiterate once again, as in my responses to you on my own talk page, that “I have no connection – however indirectly - with you, the prison service, or any of the institutions or their inmates. There is simply no reason at all that I would wish to create ‘a biased bio’”. (If it helps, I have no connection with Private Eye either, other than as a reader). As I have also said before to you, “I’m by no means the most experienced Wikipedia editor, but I have made numerous edits on all sorts of articles and have never been accused of bias before”. If my editing has been remiss in any way it most certainly hasn’t been as a result of deliberate or vindictive edits on my part, and if weaknesses in my edits haven’t been picked up sooner then it is only because this page attracts fewer editors, each with their own viewpoint, and therefore hasn’t been subject to the wide-ranging scrutiny that ensures Wikipedia entries are as reliable as possible. JezGrove (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JezGrove for you comprehensive answer you didn't need to respond with such details and I do believe that you are sincere. I also unequivocally apologise if I have offended you that was never my intention. It is really difficult to be unbiased myself because its about me and nobody likes negative things to be said about them. That said, I need to take the emotion out of this and stop it getting further out of hand. I will leave you to do your job, in good faith and hope that if you are still interested in my bio you will find the time to revisit it. I am not asking for any of the material to be removed just a little added to give a broader context within which event occurred. Bganderson1961 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Kind Regards Brian Anderson

I originally created this article about the boxer. Brian Anderson is notable as a former British champion boxer so that is what the article focused on. There were originally three sentences about his post-boxing career in the prison service. I had missed all the additions, but now looking at it I'm shocked at how much detail has been added about prisons where he worked. This is given undue weight, and it seems that any negative news stories about those prisons have been emphasised here. I'm not convinced these aspects of his career even deserve this much weight in a discussion of his career in the prison service. If Brian Anderson had not been a boxer we probably wouldn't have an article on him solely as a prison governor. I would suggest that this detail is summarised in the articles on the prisons concerned rather than flooding this article with such detail. --Michig (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a quote from Brian Anderson in one of the articles cited on the page which seems to have got omitted from my edits – sloppy editing on my part I agree, but certainly not intentional. (I can’t recall exactly what was going on back then, but I must have been interrupted one way or other and then lost track of it.) I spotted it yesterday, but didn’t add it in as I was expecting to have to incorporate it with other changes arising from comments on this page. I’m busy now until the start of next week, but I’ll try to suitably amend the article then if it hasn’t been done in the meantime. It might be worth noting that there are 15 entries in the category 'British prison governors' but I’m unfamiliar with the vast majority of the names and don’t have time right now to check out how the notability of their prison service compares with Mr Anderson’s. JezGrove (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear JezGrove I just wanted to make a few points in advance of your re-edit of Brian Anderson (Boxer) Firstly your point regarding 'British prison governors' when you have had an opportunity to read them you will note that all except for Brian Anderson (boxer) were notable because of their role and senior leadership positions within the Prison Service which was at a significant level above Brian Anderson (boxer). As an example it is relatively easy to find information regarding Parliamentary Select Committees that both phil Wheatley and Michael Spurr have been subject to which have not been cited in their bio's. They were not given the same treatment! Brian Anderson (boxer) was a standard grade Governor of which there have been thousands over the years non of whom are considered worthy of an entry in Wikipedia! If you look look at the references you use you will find hundreds of reports by HMIP and the ombudsman on prisons telling you about the bad things that happen in prisons; thats is their purpose. However, It would be usual to find any of these reports that say specifically that a Governor had done something unacceptable; it is more often something that has been done by their staff. It doesn't mean it is condoned by the Governor. Do you really feel this is good copy for Wikipedia. I note on you talk page you have had problems previously for referencing Private Eye. Do you feel this offers a balanced point of view. You have referenced some of the source material used in the Private eye Magazine but you are unable to say when Brian Anderson (boxer) actually started working at HMP Doncaster but your inference is that he was responsible for the behaviour of staff that led to the death and for that matter events that preceded the death. I could go on but I suspect you will be as bored reading this as I am writing it. Bottom line the page should be reverted back to to its original form as the creator intended. Your edits have been disproportionate. Even if you change the title to Brian Anderson (Prison Governor) it would be disproportionate in comparison to other British Prison Governors of significantly more notoriety for their roles within the Prison Service.

Kind Regards Brian Bganderson1961 (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit by JezGrove removed because the reference to the Ombudsman's report does not name Brian Anderson as the Governor at the time. The only reference to Brian Anderson is in the Private Eye report but does not give the dates that Brian Anderson was Governor of the Prison.

Bganderson1961 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Juvenile Detention consultant"

Brian Anderson has never worked as a Juvenile Detention consultant His role in the UAE is 'Strategic Advisor on Juvenile Welfare' The role of Juvenile Detention Consultant should be removed because was simply made up by the Private Eye reporter.

Bganderson1961 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source? The only actual source is that one from Private Eye. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC) p.s. this Talk Page is starting to look rather unwieldy, with no thread headings and little indenting. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to make it more readable?

The only place this can be found is on Brian Anderson"s LinkedIn page!!! I suspect this is not considered a reliable source! Bganderson1961 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You guessed right. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Howard League Article

The article by Frances Crook of the Howard League is irrelevant because it is simply a political statement by her. The Howard League have a stated aim to end child imprisonment and although the decision to re-role Ashfield to a Adult prison was announced some time before (see reference) her statement she makes it in any event. The inference is that the court case led directly to the decision to re-role.

Bganderson1961 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Restraints at Ashfield

The reference to Ashfield's increase in the number of restraints by ninefold is not made by the Chief Inspector it is a statement by the Howard League> This reference is incorrect!

Bganderson1961 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)