Jump to content

Talk:Norman Bettison

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

Re-shaping

[edit]

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)[reply]

Neutrality and BLP

[edit]

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)[reply]

And a cleaned up version is in place. Please avoid edit warring here, as I'll keep an eye on it and have the page protected if we continue to have BLP issues. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok now. Therefore POV tag removed. Greenshed (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Vandalising with Personal Opinion - Stick to FACTS

[edit]

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)[reply]


-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)[reply]

Reverted Back to Official Neutral Version

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Neutrality and COI issues

[edit]

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)[reply]

Agreed. I'll also leave it until we see what comes out of the WP:COI discussion, but I certainly don't consider the "official" version neutral. Overall, I think it's a useful basis for an expanded article, but it needs editing in areas where it actively underplays controversial areas. As I cited at WP:COIN:
This was despite a difficult introduction when it was reported that Sir Norman had been involved in the investigation of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 when 96 Liverpool football fans died. He offered to meet with relatives of those who lost their lives at Hillsborough to defuse the controversy
is just a meaningless string of events without an explanation of why his involvement in the investigation was controversial. Similarly:
An unprecedented step for a retried [sic] Chief Constable to rejoin the Service in a similar rank, it was not without penalty. Sir Norman was denied his previously paid pension
is not terribly informative without more explanation of the context (i.e. that this was a matter of dispute). And in any case, "penalty" and "denied" are non-neutral in carrying an assumption that this was an entitlement that was refused him (rather than, say, something that was not the norm that he tried, and failed, to obtain).
Another formatting issue, by the way: as this is a cross-referenced encyclopedia, if internal links exist, it's the custom to use those rather than external ones. For instance, West Yorkshire Police, not West Yorkshire Police.
This content discussion really belongs at Talk:Norman Bettison. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

news story

[edit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nwikipedia129.xml —Random832 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in the Daily Mail (Police chief forces staff to monitor his Wikipedia entry to stop users posting rude comments about him). I think we can take that as proof of COI, and that means Webteam3 (talk · contribs) and any other obvious representatives are strongly advised to follow WP:COI guidelines: that is, help via this Talk page and avoid directly editing the page except for minor crucial corrections. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, bloody hell. Surprised we haven't had a total flood of vandals from all this... (by the way, the article's looking far better, folks!) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice the semiprotection... must learn to look at history more often... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've restored the education section. Philosophy is a subfaculty at Oxford and combinations may be possible that you're not aware of, or may have been possible at that time. In addition, we don't need extra verification -- that website is a sufficient source for a BLP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You what? You are saying that anyone can get their sub-ordinates to post a page claiming an Oxford degree and wikipedia will copy it without proof? Even when that degree isn't offered (and to the best I can ascertain from by contemoraries at Oxford was never offered) by Oxford? <personal attack redacted by R. Baley> Webspit (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying you know for a fact that Oxford didn't offer that degree in the 70s or 80s or whenever he did it, and you may be right. But I think if you had evidence of that, you wouldn't need to resort to calling people ignorant turds. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems more likely to be a slip between source and web copy: NewsBank finds it reported the right way round ("1981: awarded a scholarship to Oxford University where he gained a BA in Psychology and Philosophy" - Bettison's legacy, Paul Kennedy, Liverpool Echo February 20, 2002). It's sufficiently verified. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even better he's so busy getting his wikipedia entry turned into a hagiography he can't be bothered checking his own CV 86.150.91.185 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well found, Gordon. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

I would leave them all out. They unbalance the article. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he is using staff as alleged in the Daily Mail article cited above, I would think that that is notable evidence of corruption, since they are not being paid as PR people but as officers of the law. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 00:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is a sensationalist tabloid, and isn't a reliable source for this article, especially considering it's a biography of a living person.--Addhoc (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What total bollocks. It's the second largest tabloid in the UK and has just as much journalistic integrity as any of the other biggies. --WebHamster 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you are aware there is a civility policy. Addhoc (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks, there's also a WP:SPADE too. --WebHamster 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be a bit of a cultural disconnect here - what "tabloid" usually refers to in the US are not anything remotely resembling a respectable newspaper. —Random832 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK a few of the larger papers were once broadsheets, for whatever reason some of them resized down to tabloid size. Over here it just means the size of the paper rather than overtly calling them crap :) Though it has to be said that some of them are indeed as you describe. --WebHamster 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a dual meaning. As WebHamster says, it's a hangover from the divide between broadsheet-sized "quality papers" like the Times, and lowbrow tabloid-sized papers like the Sun. Even though most (all?) UK papers have gone to tabloid size, "tabloid" persists as a term for trashy journalism, alongside its literal meaning of tabloid size. As the [[Tabloid] article says, some papers are calling their size "compact" to avoid the ambiguity. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it

[edit]

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)[reply]

That would be an inappropriate over-reaction to a news report which may be untrue. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this guy is a little too arrogant to be complaining about any of this. He doesn't look like a very pleasant person to be around. He should get a life and do something meaningful with his time and taxpayer money. Valuebundle79 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. It's a completely inappropriate use of public funds, for him to deploy police staff to troll Wikipedia on his behalf. This place is not meant to be a playground for egotistical grandstanding, and is not meant for people to come here and try to suppress criticism or dissension, whether their motives are MONEY/CAREER or genuine friendship and admiration (and in this case, several newspapers have reported which of those it is). --Zubedar (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAP. Wikipedia talk pages are for developing the article, not airing your opinions about the subject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha yes, and I would point out that in this particular instance the subject in this case is the personality Norman Bettison, and his actions in using public resources to try to suppress the information that surfaced here at Wikipedia recently. All of this has been widely reported in the news and is a matter of FACT not opinion. You might want to check the Times, the Daily Mail, the BBC website, etc.--Zubedar (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you actually proposing in relation to the article? Stub it because he's done something you don't like? I don't recall that being in WP:NOTE. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's quite a tough question. In an ideal world I think the article should reflect the fact that the article itself has had a contentious history on Wikipedia, and this has extended into realspace in an ugly way. The Chief has gone public by approaching the press with claims that people have been 'defacing' his Wikipedia page (in his point of view), and this has attracted a wide cross-section of media interest. The actions taken by this individual in trying to remedy what he sees as a bad situation are unprecedented and genuinely quite astonishing to most people, and have become a part of his career history. So from that point of view they should be recorded in the article. However, in reality he will not accept this unless he doesn't have any choice, and therein lies one half of the problem. The problem here is that not only is the article a source of conflict, but the ends and means of Wikipedia itself are on trial or at least 'charged'. This man's authority and jurisdiction is limited to the powers invested in him by his local police authority of which he is a member, and the Home Secretary. They do not extend to Wikipedia.. The conflict so far has been the usual stuff with living person bios, i.e. claimed defamation of character. Defamation is not a police matter and in any event it has been an error of judgment to bring Wikipedia's methods or culture into question just because of some personal agenda. So it may after be in the best interests of this site to just stub it and stop the politics.--Zubedar (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

[edit]

Should a local police official even have a biography on Wikipedia? 71.227.113.171 (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major post: and if you think he's non-notable, you'll have to make the case for all the others in Category:British Chief Constables. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think his point was that it's a bit unusual for a police officer to insist on having an entry in Wikipedia about himself as a matter of course. If someone else decides to make an entry for him, then fair enough. But for a police official to insist on having such an entry, supplying his own Facebook type of mugshot and personal profile, insisting on being able to have complete control of its contents now and in the future through his subordinates, indicates to most people that something is a little amiss.--Zubedar (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He will not, repeat not have complete control of the contents. That's not how Wikipedia works. This is a collaborative editing project; as you can see, a group of editors who are not his subordinates have taken it in hand already. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image

[edit]

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)[reply]

Full Protection

[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi Pedro, thanks for protecting the article. Addhoc (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's too high profile at the moment to allow continued warring - in particular by respected editors. Full protection ends at 12:00 4th March (WP time) and hopefully we can resolve any issues by then. Pedro :  Chat  23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree - in fact I would support restricting all editors to 1RR.--Addhoc (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope we don't need to come to that - it's not that much of an issue so far. Given the publicity I am obviously watching this article like many othes, and will extend the full protection if I must as an uninvolved party. I'm hoping I won't have to of course! Pedro :  Chat  23:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's actually come up with a non-subjective reason to not include the quote yet, so what's the problem? Either way I'm patient. But whilst I'm waiting I may as well put my opinion across. The current wording only gets across the "rude comments" and the fact that the 'Guv' wants what's on the website which is fair enough. But what it doesn't put across that he wants more than that. According to that quote he only wants "his" words to appear on it which isn't covered in the present wording. This isn't a question of WP:BLP as the section does not give undue weight to the article, it only uses the wording in the cites. So what's the problem and why is it arbitrarily deemed to be "over the top"? The person who said it should have thought of that, it's not our responsibility to censor what was said. It also goes to showing the sort of person he is, ie controlling, PR savvy and sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong. --WebHamster 23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WH, you wrote above: "According to that quote he only wants "his" words to appear on it which isn't covered in the present wording."
But that's not what the quote you added says. It says: "He insisted staff regularly log on to see if the entry has been changed - and make sure the words he wants are put back on as soon as possible." That doesn't say that he wanted only his words to appear. That's why I said that adding it was overkill, because we already say he wanted material from the official website to be added, and rude remarks removed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The words "he wants"" is quite clear in the quote. It would be synthesis to say that he meant what was on the website as we don't know who wrote the blurb on their website. The fact of the matter is that what he said is important, not what I said in this discussion. If the exact quote is used then it's up to the reader to interpret it and not the writer. --WebHamster 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says "... and make sure the words he wants are put back." The article says elsewhere that "the words he wants" are the words on the official website. That is not SYN; that is reading the article and sticking closely to the source. There is no need to add a gratuitous quote in addition to our summary. But it would be better still not to include this in the article at all. It's a very minor issue, intended to embarrass him, and self-referential. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very minor issue, intended to embarrass him, and self-referential
It was a major enough to make it into three national newspapers and at least two regional ones. If you mean Wikipedia editors intend to embarrass him, WP:AGF: not everyone supporting its inclusion has expressed that view. If you mean external news sources intended it to embarrass him, that's WP:NOR, unless you have a hotline to their editorial intentions. Don't forget it first appeared in Police Review. "Self-referential": I cited below the exception given in the self-reference guidelines: when someone's real-world actions notably impinge on Wikipedia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter where they are, it's the fact that he wants specific wording, ie his choice, to appear on WP. As far as I'm aware self-referential is referring to things within the article and not referring to outside events that involve Wikipedia. if that was the case there'd be no Wikipedia surely? --WebHamster 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in both the Mail and Telegraph is "...make sure the words he wants are put back on as soon as possible". That's intention to micromanage the article, not merely to "include material". See my comment 00:14, 3 March 2008 immediately below. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to edit war and make personal attacks, you're could be blocked. Addhoc (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Quit with the advice --WebHamster 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on him as a person, but I agree with Webhamster on the point of this quote (though I also agree with Addhoc about the Daily Mail not being a reliable source). But the Telegraph I'd count as reliable, and is alone in giving a very explicit and attributed quote ("He insisted staff regularly log on to see if the entry has been changed - and make sure the words he wants are put back on as soon as possible").
"The words he wants" is the key point. In contrast, "to remove rude comments and include material from the West Yorkshire website" definitely understates the amount of control attempted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is different, actually. It has an appended reader comment section, currently running at about 70 comments, that frames the story with exactly the kind of unattributed hostile diatribe that we're trying to keep out of the picture in the interest of neutrality. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which would make it the public not being a reliable source and not the paper wouldn't it? And from what I can see nobody's quoting any of those diatribes, they (me) are quoting the story. Now given that the quote is in both papers I fail to see how, in this instance, it can be construed that the Daily Mail is any less reliable than the Telegraph. --WebHamster 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question at issue isn't the validity and accuracy of the Daily Mail article, it is that the comments on it are biased and attacking in and of themselves and whether the biased comments are reason enough to not cite the article at all. Morrowulf (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like the Daily Mail doesn't honour WP:NPA then, though what that has to do with including the cite or not I don't know. To me it shows at least two things. 1) Free speech is at work (well an illusion of it anyway) and 2) "common abuse" is not illegal (or unlawful), at least not in the UK. I'm pretty sure that the Daily Mail will delete anything that is actually libellous, so again, what's the problem? Surely you wouldn't want to censor what some of the British public think about this man would you? It's not as if we're quoting them now is it? --WebHamster 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that in this case, story plus commentary come as a package. The comments, by the way, run to almost four times the length of the story itself and are almost uniformly hostile to Bettison. If a reader goes to the Mail source to check the citation (as is the point of providing sources), they get what amounts to a contentious and partisan source, and that's well out of order with WP:BLP.
A link with such a large of amount of abuse also looks pretty questionable under WP:BLP's section on external links: "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happens on other sites is beyond the purview of Wikipedia. The cite points at a story in a major British newspaper. What Joe Public say is irrelevant, the cite is related to the story. We don't take into account any ads that appear on pages so why should we take into account what else appears on the page. It's pretty much certain that the facts of the story are correct and accurate yes? So that alone should be the only reason for including, or not including the cite. The ultimate responsibility for the public backlash should be down to Bettison, not Wikipedia. I'd even go so far as to include some narrative in the article about the response of the public to the story. This factual article is not about some shy retiring professor. This is about a high profile police officer who is out there in public life and who has been seeking more press, well now he's got it. He doesn't get to choose what it says and where it appears. This is the price he pays for being in the public eye. This isn't a WP:BLP issue. It's factual, it's reported and in the scheme of things it's not undue weighting. As I said earlier, it isn't policy to censor anything here let alone censor anything anywhere else. --WebHamster 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've not contributed to this before, here or on the main page, perhaps it might be worthwhile while protection is in place to look at what rank-and-file police officers are saying. http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/sir-norman-bettison-is-not-greedy-vain.html On this site, just one of many, there is not a single message of support for Sir Norman. Almost all are very critical. I remember some time ago a similar episode on the Duke of Wellington's Regiment page. That was subjected to repeated attempts to put an official spin on it, before the regiment's archivists were firmly reminded that Wikipedia is not an organ of the state to be manipulated for the benefit of those currently in power, and then it settled down. It should be remembered how this unwelcome publicity originated. It came about because officialdom sought to manipulate a Wikipedia entry for their own ends. The vandalisim that preceded that is not an excuse. Vandalism happens. Attempts by Sir Norman's staff to suppress it in the heavy-handed way allegedly typical of policemen only made it worse, and led to the press interest. I don't pretend to know how to resolve this, but the heavy hand of state control ain't the way. I tend towards Zubedar's suggestion that the article should be stubbed after the protection expires. There are too many personal or political agendas intruding here for my personal taste. The sneering at the Daily Mail content and readership hasn't helped either. I don't read it, nor like its stridency, but in a free society its readership is as entitled as any others to express a view without having insults heaped on them. Wikipedia isn't in the business of censorship. Or is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.158.135 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happens on other sites is beyond the purview of Wikipedia.
It most certainly isn't. Read WP:LINKS for a variety of reasons why links may be unacceptable: derogatory material about living persons is one of them. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Mail have removed the comment section
Ignore the above. They haven't.
Blogs, however, wouldn't be reliable sources, whether hostile or not. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


A link is not necessary, only convenient to have, when citing a source that appears in print. —Random832 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given that there is still full protection of this page, I am very concerned and disappointed that Zanimum has edited out the "Controversy" section, given what the protection policy has to say on this: Administrators should not make significant changes to fully protected pages without prior discussion. I thought the point of protection was to prevent edit-warring and gain consensus to make changes, not carte blanche for unilateral admin actions. EJF (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agreed. I've left a message for Zanimum to this effect [1].It's also a little annoying to see that some of those whose edit warring led to the full protection aren't engaging in discussion here to help form consensus over whatever issues they felt so strongly about. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, you couldn't make the protection lock any more subtle. I frankly didn't see it there, and I don't personally think that anything more than semi-protect is needed. If registered users are battling over the content, I've always known the policy to be that you deal with them individually. Perhaps BLP has changed this, but my understanding is that protection should only be used in rare cases.
Anyway, in relation to the controversy section, avoiding self-references seems to be the norm in this sort of situation. Sinbad's "death" received probably a good hundred articles, in numerous countries. Bettison received 6, as far as I can see. One of them is a satire, and all are in the UK. Yes, Sinbad is internationally notable, this chap isn't. But still, this sort of thing happens every day. Usually people react to the incidents. Is that a big enough event in their life to include? Likely not. This guy's a knight, for godsakes. I'm sure this is a blip on his 40 or some year record. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, you couldn't make the protection lock any more subtle. I frankly didn't see it there
In which I apologise without reservation for assuming wrongly that you'd seen it and edited without discussion.
As to the case in point, though, this is arguably - and I'm not 100% sure myself because we haven't seen how it'll develop - another exception to avoiding self-references, akin to the one cited for John Seigenthaler, Sr., "because the media attention surrounding his Wikipedia entry is now a notable event in his public life". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Okay, fair enough that you didn't see the protection lock image. Now that we have that sorted out will you put the article back to how you found it please? --WebHamster 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • (ec) I could not care less how it ends up, but while the article is protected, it is protected. It needs to be reverted back to the version at which protection took place (you know, the wrong version). I ask that Zanimum revert him/herself. I would rather not have to go to ANI to get an uninvolved admin. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zanium claims to have edited the protected article accidentally, but when it was pointed out to him/her, s/he criticized the protection and then ignored policy surrounding protected articles by not self-reverting to the protected version. I am not interested in discussion with anyone using their mop as a club. Any regular user complaining about the wrong version would have had "the link" pointed out to them, and told to make their case. Zanium made the edit and left the building. I didn't realize protection ended so soon, so there's not much point to me appealing this act anywhere. R. Baley (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Zanimum made the edit by mistake, and as others have asked that it be restored to the protected version, I've done that. Even though there isn't much protection-time left, I think when people ask that a protected version be restored, it ought to be. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest/request a further 48 hours protection. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
How do others feel about this? Is there a definate need for further full protection? Pedro :  Chat  11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think full protection was never required in the first place, at the time it was instituted we had virtually come to a consensus anyway, all that was needed was an agreement on the specifics of the wording. So my straw !vote is that full protection isn't required, but semi protection will be for a while yet. --WebHamster 12:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a look at the history shows why I disagree that it was not necessary. However I'm sure that protection is not currently useful, and the page is now un-protected; as I am uninvolved I will keep this watchlisted. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with semiprotection. What would be the chances of getting this Talk page semiprotected too? Much of the problem has been that it's difficult to carry on the kind of focused consensus-building about specific points ("should we include X? ... how to word Y?") that protection is supposed to foster, with the constant influx of users turning up to give their 2 cents on Bettison himself. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too keen on semi protecting the talk page (see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection - about half way down). There's no real disruption here and dis-enfranchising IP's would seem a bad thing. Pedro :  Chat  15:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with democracy and freedom of expression is that there are all those people out there in the real world who believe that they too have the right to express a view. And invariably, insiders, the well-connected or the powerful are the ones who end up trying to limit freedom of expression by the hoi-polloi. Bit like Sir Norman himself really. Very sad to see able and sincere people paint themselves into that corner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.158.135 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the hoi polloi" is surely tautologous. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia where there is no freedom of expression or speech... there is only verifiability.--WebHamster 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability? Well yes thats true of main pages. However Talk pages are specifically for expressions of differing viewpoints, whether those talk pages are here or in the Daily Mail. And while on that topic, the very notion expressed here that some newspapers are 'respectable' implies that others are not. No matter that those deemed 'not respectable' are not actually free like Wikipedia, but require readers to put their hand in their wallet and pay for them with hard-earned cash. Surely a pointer to how well-regarded they are, and purchased daily by hundreds of thousands of readers. Rather more than who read these columns. To imply that those large numbers of readers hold views that are not 'respectable' is deeply insulting to those who actually believe in freedom. You cannot pick and choose the bits of freedom you happen to like. Its all or nothing. There is no middle way. No 'third way'.
Switching topic slightly, I note from a recent post-ban googling of Sir Norman's name, that unusually his Wikipedia listing is not at the top of Google's first page, but at the very bottom. Suggesting that the wider public finds this entire topic of marginal interest. And perhaps that's a good thing if it permits matters to cool and the mainstream press lose interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.158.135 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again free speak does not extend to talk pages either, semi protection wouldn't be censorship per se, but it would help keep the conversation limited to the article and not the article's subject. The latter is a possibility judging by the comments section of the Daily mail.
Regarding the newspapers, well the WP criteria is reliability in respect of factual and accurate research. The actual sales is immaterial as are the target readership. Additionally the size of the newspapare is immaterial too. I seem to recall back in the day that the News of the World used to be a broadsheet. --WebHamster 19:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. House style - restricting discourse to a particular area or task - is not censorship. As to:
However Talk pages are specifically for expressions of differing viewpoints
Wrong. Only within limits. Wikipedia Talk pages are specifically for discussion directly relating to developing the article, not forums for venting your views on the press and democracy (WP:NOT#CHAT, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, WP:SOAP, WP:BLP#Non-article space, etc). So please, 86.151.158.135, would you just can it unless you have something to say with some explicit bearing on edits to this article? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Centrex/NPIA events

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looking into this very briefly, from Peter Neyroud it sounds like he beat Bettison in January 2006; Centrex continued to operate until April 2007 when it was merged into NPIA. As lovely poetic as "had to be phoenixed under a new name" sounds (I must remember that one) I don't think it sounds accurate given these considerations. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Degree

[edit]

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)[reply]

Riddance of controversy section

[edit]

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)[reply]

Hillsborough Independent Panel and plea to avoid vandalism

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Bettison&oldid=1206275231"