Talk:Bob Seely

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bob Seely article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Isle of Wight Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Wight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of the Isle of Wight in South East England 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.Isle of WightWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of WightTemplate:WikiProject Isle of WightIsle of Wight-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 5 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Seely → Bob Seely – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Bob Seely is the name used on his official website and Parliamentary profile. It is also the name overwhelmingly favoured in reliable sources, with practically no coverage for "Robert Seely". AusLondonder (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. No-brainer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Finnegas (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Referencing

Way too much information in this article has been sourced from the MP’s own blog, which is clearly not an NPOV RS, and suggests editing with POV in mind. I have removed the citation and related material, and would ask that future edits confirm with normal WP standards in terms of VERIFIABILITY and NPOV. MapReader (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally significant parts of it are unsourced, which also needs editor attention. MapReader (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing practices - removal of text.

In the most recent edit, the following paragraph has been removed:

“The Bill was considered controversial in media reports, in part due to the perceived restrictions it would place on protests and protestors. Seely was subsequently criticised on social media and in local media coverage reference was made to his support for the Bill in light of his track-record in supporting protests in Hong Kong concerning the Chinese government.”

I believe this to be an inappropriate edit, as it provides context to the relevant section (activities in Parliament).

If absolutely necessary, it is possible to update with an appropriate reference, rather than remove the section in question.

There is documented evidence to support the deleted section, including external references to the criticism of Bob Seely as mentioned. Chausettes (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions made by anonymous user 20.01.22

A revision has been made which removes relevant details (subject’s girlfriend being a local journalist who joined him at a barbecue). I think the change should be reverted, but happy to engage in a discussion about it, or what format it should take if it is re-included. Thoughts please! Chausettes (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I watch this page, and there have been edits in the past that raise concerns about NPOV and neutrality. But I don’t think that removing non-notable information about his girlfriend qualifies as such. MapReader (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that MapReader - I wasn’t sure (hence I didn’t just revert). Chausettes (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions user edits

The detail and depth of content on this article is quite in depth compared to equally prominent politicians.

Looking at the edits, it looks like a lot of edits come from a small selection of users with all users showing a lot of the indicators of WP:SOSP. The below account all indicate WP:REPEATING, WP:XS, WP:PREC, WP:IDART, WP:CONNECTION, WP:CHRONOSOCK, WP:OCUSE, WP:BRIEFLY.

I would suggest contributions from the below accounts be treated with extra attention.

user:Janejones123 user:FantaAmazon user:TheOnlyJohnMajor user:JamesIOW user:Peter1 and Paul2 user:Simon.Loader Jo Jc Jo (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have noticed this myself - edits from accounts where this is pretty much (and sometimes precisely) the only article ever edited. Whilst self-editing (which would include by your own staff) is allowed under WP rules, it's clear that articles should be encyclopaedic rather than promotional. I've made various edits over recent months to remove obviously self-promotional material where it doesn't meet the normal criteria of notability. You can also see that I have raised similar concerns myself before, above. MapReader (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong whiff of that for sure. Not sure how good a job they've made of it though, it seems less successfully "promotional" than just "rambling and wordy".

There's a very odd aspect concerning how poorly chronologically structured it is. Or maybe Captain Sir Bob's just had a very weird career. If we have a suitable source, it'd be good to clarify if he enlisted in the army reserve while already pretty long in the tooth (having previously been a journo, a failed parliamentary candidate, etc), or if he was "activated" from a much earlier enlistment. If we knew that, we might be able to put it into better shape than the existing jumping backwards and forwards in time. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]