- Gillian Duffy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Gillian Duffy is a British woman and typical Labour Party heartland voter who on 28 April 2010 became the centre of a political storm during the 2010 United Kingdom general election campaign, when the incumbent Prime Minister, Labour's Gordon Brown was caught in an open-mic gaffe labelling her a 'bigotted woman' in private, straight after having a public discussion with her while on walkabout. full transcript here, courtesy of The Times.
All hell broke loose, grovelling apologies were made, Brown's already slim chances were written off, and he even mentioned it first in his opening speech in the third televised leader's debate on 29 April. The gaffe dogged him for weeks, before he eventually lost the election on 6 May 2010, and resigned as Prime Minister 5 days later.
However, Gillian Duffy was vanished from existence (on Wikipedia anyway) in a series of knee-jerk BLP over-reaction speedy deletions of various articles within a couple of days of the gaffe, and in an out of process speedy closure of an Afd of bigotted woman incident. The resulting DRV, which would likely not have even been needed had the Afd run its course, turned out to be no consensus as it turns out, but it was irrelevant by then, no admin was apparently going to fess up and admit infront of the deleters that this had been one giant runaway steamroller.
The general assertions at the time were the classic 1E rationales - the incident wasn't significant, she was a private person, the coverage would blow over within a week. And people used all their powers of sooth saying to support their opinions and actions, despite the fact that even at the time of the incident, the coverage showed this was anything but.
The coverage at the time went well beyond routine news, it was a hugely notable event of the election, as evidenced by the summaries of the immediate coverage of it from The Guardian and from The Times. Such was the interest in her, she was given full biographical style coverage by the BBC and by The Telegraph and by Channel 4. It got ample global coverage as well, even Americans in their haze of domestic insularity got how important she was to the UK election and the interest in it: Gillian Duffy, .... potential game-changer in the U.K. election -Wall Street Journal, 1 May, the only gaffe that got any attention during the campaign -CNN, 6 May
After Brown resigned, it was even mentioned as the last significant event in the BBC's rundown of the "political career of Gordon Brown" published the same day - "And then on the campaign trail, he met a woman called Gillian Duffy...Mr Brown visited her at home to apologise but the damage was done". This is just a few days after the first Afd would have been scheduled to have been closed, had it been allowed to run it's course.
Still, that was then. This is now. So, let's take a look at whether the people voting and deleting in that knee-jerk-fest were better political analysts/commentators/predictors than all those reliable sources, or were justified at being so concerned over her privacy and stating BLP demanded immediate prejudicial erasure of any and all content, such that we couldn't even wait 7 days to judge the impact or coverage.
Well, first, let's address the claims that this would be a flash in the pan event, violating NOT#NEWS, it would be over within a week, with no resulting ongoing coverage of any significance that would mean anyone would want to know anything about the event. First off, we have the basic indicator of Google hits. The incident happened in late April/early May. Yet searching for "Gillian Duffy" delivers 1,160 results for July 2010, rising to 13,200 results for this month, all 18 days of it so far. I even did a random 'last 24 hours' search as I type this, and still got 354 results. And as an aside, when searching for "Gillian Duffy" in Google, "Gillian Duffy wiki" is Google's top auto-complete suggestion. Rather depressingly, due to Wikipedia's blackout, people are resorting to asking WikiAnswers, Who is gillian duffy?.
Now let's address the claims that the event, or her role in the election, were not going to remain significant for the purposes of 1E, making here a notable person, and would not be mentioned in ongoing historical contexts proving long term notability, of at least the incident, but more probably, her. Well, her views are used as a benchmark in coverage of immigration issues by The Telegraph in early June, where it has become known as the "Gillian Duffy question" by The Guardian, with the "Gillian Duffy gaffe" described as having been symptomatic of Brown's "refusal to engage with the issue". All in coverage spanning the entire month of June. Gillian Duffy's encounter with Brown is still described as "one of the defining moments of the election campaign" by Channel 4, over two months on. It is described as "One of the biggest ever blunders to hit Gordon Brown" (in only three years in the job), which "effectively derailed his election campaign" and which "some observers say it was a major factor in him losing", this from coverage over three months on from the incident. Four months on, it is remembered as the "election disaster" by The Independent.
Now to address the claims that she was a private person and deserved simple blanket protection under BLP generally (which was probably about the only legitimate reason that was ever given in the deletion melee). Well, despite the fact that it always was a ludicrous suggestion that with the media explosion and already proven coverage as detailed already, now, well after the incident, she is courting, and receiving, ongoing media coverage. In the resulting Labour Party leadership election after Brown quit, at the end of July she was sought out by candidate David Milliband for a meeting, with the media making much hay of her edorsement of his candidacy. In early August she was guest of honour at a Labour Party constituency event in Rochdale, and began to give televised interviews to ITV about the gaffe. This doesn't sound like she is shunning the spotlight to me.
In conclusion, it's about time this almight balls up was corrected, and people were allowed to create this link. It took me barely two hours to rustle up the evidence above that this is justifiable, it is by no means comprehensive, many many more examples are out there. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer we have an article on the incident and redirect the person there, at least for now. The incident is clearly notable and I see no reason not to have an article on it. At present she should redirect to [1]. I can see no reason not to have _that_ redirect in any case. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to have a bold !vote weak edorse deletion of article, overturn deletion of redirect to [2], endorse writing event article and moving redirect to there later. Longest bolded !vote ever... Hobit (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Hobit. All those sources are brilliant, and they show that the coverage did indeed continue... but it's still coverage directly related to that one event. Duffy herself would fail BLP1E; on the other hand, the event passes WP:EVENT. So let's allow creation of an article on the event, and possibly redirect her name to that. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No - To quote a well-known meme image, "Aw geez, not this shit again". Mick was a rather fanatic proponent for retention back in the original discussions, and I find it slightly disturbing that this sentiment has not abated over time. The concept of "one event" has not changed in the slightest; a woman says something, a live mic catches an unfortunate, candid retort, and then the political fallout. There is nothing notable about the woman other than she talked to a politician. There is not now nor will there ever be a rationale to create an article on the woman herself, or even a redirect. A few interviews doesn't elevate her notability in the slightest. I'd rather see either the Gay Nigger Association of America's or Brian Pepper's article make a return before this. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentiment has not abated over time because the abuse of policy back then was such a monumental disgrace to the pedia that it stuck in my mind, and I vowed to do something about it once the inevitable evidence of notability became overwhelming, which it has now, which any clueful editor will easily appreciate now I'm sure. Still, I guess it's something to see that you are consistent. Your fringe and fantastical interpretations of actual policy is as bad now as it was back then. Why don't you actually try reading them beyond the titles this time? MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More coverage doesn't makes one event into two. She would be utterly unknown if not for a slip of someone else's microphone, and despite a smattering of interviews, does not appear to be going out of her way to grasp onto 15 minutes of proverbial fame. Show a bit of decency and just let it go, already. Jesus. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said there were two events? Please don't invent arguments just so you can give a rebuttal. And 'she would be unknown if she hadn't done the thig that made her notable' is not the brightest of arguments I've ever seen. And sorry, but you are quite mistaken if you think the presumption of privacy aspect of 1E means we only write about reality TV contestants who are demonstrably 'grasping for fame'. It is ludicrous to suggest that someone going to public functions and giving television and media interviews can still be considered a private person in terms of the historical record. Your total lack of perspective in that regard is not going to affect my sense of deceny one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One event happened; someone inadvertently insulted this woman on a live microphone. She is otherwise a completely ordinary and non-notable person. Note the "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate" line from WP:BLP1E. You do know what the word "and" means, right? Both of those conditions need to be met; the first one likely has been, the second one certainly has not. There is no more to this story, and no more to this person, than that. That is about as simple as I can explain the matter. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Her role couldn't have been more significant, which is why she has been given biographical level coverage in multiple sources, and why even many months after the event, the resulting political issues are framed as 'the Gillian Duffy question', and she is actively sought out by the media and Labour leadership candidates for her pesonal opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse was and still is a classic BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. I will most definitely go after any admin who dares close this review by giving any weight to simple assertion votes like this. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we turning to eThuggery now? Threatening to "go after" people who disagree with you is not really much in the spirit of collegial editing, IMO. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, nooo! MickMacNee is going to go after me! Excuse me whilst I quake in fear! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't give a monkeys about you and your lack of policy knowledge/reading skills, I will be 'going after' any closing admin who puts any weight on these wholly deficient 'classic 1E' votes. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse A classic case of BLP1E. Complete this sentence, "Gillian Duffy is notable for ..." The answer is, of course, she is "notable" for what someone else said about her, and off the record as well. To be notable, you have to actually do something of note or be of interest in your right. Despite the masses of verbiage listed above, none of it - not one bit of it - indicates that Duffy is notable in her own right. The event was, and is, notable because of Brown's actions, not Duffy's and to use that one event as a coatrack to create an article on Duffy is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and a breach of the spirit of WP:BLP. This discussion has been picked over many times and the existing consensus to delete remains valid. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1E is not a blanket ban on ever creating articles on people known for one event. The detail given above is more than ample evidence to demonstrate that all principles behind the 'spirit' of 1E - significance, privacy, historical notability, have all been satisfied, and in spades - I managed to find all of the above and write it all up in just a couple of hours. There is much more out there. We can debate where the level is, but if you simply doubt it completely, then you've not read the policy at all, and do not know what a 1E even is, let alone a "classic one". Your idea that this has been picked over many times is simply false, with all the out of process shenanigas and shut-downs that didn't even wait seven days proved that. It has never had a proper discussion, and most certainly not since all the above detail was known, so if you can think that, I would say you have not even bothered to consider what has changed in that respect. And God knows why you even mentioned coatrack, without an actual article to dicsuss that term is meaningless, as you have no idea what the 'coats' are. And whether it's a 'rack' for coats even, is as said, dependent on you judging correctly if it is a 1E or not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions can anyone give a policy based reason why this shouldn't be a redirect? It appears there was some debate about this on a now-deleted talk page, but given that she is covered in an article, I don't understand what possible reason there is for not having a redirect. Anyone? WP:BLP1E would seem to suggest it is a good thing. I was going to add the redirect myself but I see it is protected. Also, are those of you opposing the recreation of this article also opposing creating an "event" article as Alzarian16 and I have suggested? It seems to meet WP:EVENT in spades. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy-based reason against a redirect here on "dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" - fuller comment below, including links to ANI and to the now-undeleted talk page where this was all debated at length. JohnCD (talk)
- Those are reasons to consider privacy. I don't see how a redirect harms that given that she is clearly already there by name in the target article. Also, I don't think there was consensous on the talk page nor do I think the talk page was the right place to have that discussion (RfD exists for a reason). Hobit (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse No, no, no, no, no. This is a classic BLP1E and mention in Brown's article or that of the election is enough for this. AS the redirect? No strong opinion, but if we do put one up I'd suggest we lock it to prevent abuse. Oh, and the traditional way of presenting cases like this is to produce a userspace draft showing enduring notability. That would be a much better way of getting this changed then a long rant and threats. Flys and honey anyone? Spartaz Humbug! 04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not have an article on the event (which you seem to be ruling out)? It certainly looks to pass WP:EVENT. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding at the time was that it was covered in the article on the election. Surely it's an editorial decision whether this gets spun into a sub article but the focus would clearly need to be on Brown not Duffy. But an article on Duffy - absolutely not unless she becomes newsworthy for a second event. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that it is/was 'covered' is not accurate at all. At the time, it was buried under a section called 'April' because people were still trying to pretend their early reactionary sooth saying was still even remotely accurate, even though this was clearly false even based on contemporary coverage. And there it rotted, barely updated because nobody could find it to update it, and where over time it has ultimately been given equal prominence with totally trivial incidents, none of which even had a hundredth of the level of significance or historical impact of Gillian Duffy. It is not just an editorial decision just to split it or not, because thanks to all the kneejerk reactions and subsequent admin actions, any and all proposed titles for content about Duffy but not necessarily titled 'Gillian Duffy' have all suffered the same restrictions of being considered 'recreated deleted material', and/or being protected, thanks to the almight blunt fist that is BLP. Given that the only plausible search term, her name, the one used by all the coverage, has been salted, then for all intents and purposes, unless someone was just randomly browsing the election article, it apparently never happened, and nobody has any reason to wonder what all the coverage detailed above, which all mentions Gillian Duffy by name, is all about. And the relevance of all that material is no longer focussed on Brown or even the election, it has gone way beyond that. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage relating to Duffy has gone well beyond Brown and the election. It would be bloody ludicrous to include the information detailed above in either of those articles. Totally absurd, a classic case of a square peg in a round hole. If people are so insistent this is a "classic BLP1E", then why don't you have a go at rebutting what I've said with actual policy wording with regards to significance, historical notability and privacy, rather than making simple personal assertions, which don't make a blind bit of difference to the facts of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I did not bother creating a draft first because the previous astounding abuse of the deletion policies on the several prior drafts people wrote about this at the time made it clear that nobody would probably even read it before kneejerking their way to the delete button, so better to get it straight beforehand as to whether future objections are going to be policy based, or more of the same hysterical kneejerking out of some half-clue about what 1E is for. MickMacNee (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't be bothered to write a draft you can't be surprised if we aren't interested in overturning the afd. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting logic. Unless I waste many many hours writing a userspace draft which may never see the light of day, you won't bother making any policy based arguments. Brilliant. You are an intelligent guy, everything you need to know about how any proposed draft would go is easily discernable from the detailed evidence presented above. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there is no need for a draft given that we are arguing about sources and meeting WP:BLP1E a draft doesn't really serve a purpose I can see.Hobit (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think we all know how this is going to play out. There will not be consensus for an article on her, but objections to an article on the event and a redirect from her to it will be limited. Nick, I realize where you are coming from and largely tend to agree about the general case but consider this one boarder line (at the moment, if she continues showing up in the media that would move me to your side). Is there any chance I could talk you into A) dropping the DrV B) writing an article focusing on the event and it's implications and C) having a redirect of Ms. Duffy to the event article? The election article could then have a link to this event article also and we'd have reasonable coverage of both the event and more limited coverage of the person. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support a Gillian Duffy being a redirect to either an article on the incident or an article containing the incident. 1E doesn't apply to the existence of redirects and, for a name well known as this one is, we should have some information on wikipedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the presumption of privacy issue. Regardless of whether we have a redirect from Gillian Duffy to the incident or not, I seriously doubt if her grandkids will be unaware of this incident. It is well reported and well covered and the privacy issue is, imo, a non-issue. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, and (as the admin who originally did it) also endorse deletion and salting of the redirect. This was discussed interminably at AN/I here and again here and on Talk:Gillian Duffy (now undeleted - discussion visible in the history) and there was (over Mick's metaphorical dead body) a majority against a redirect.
- Hobit asked above for a policy-based reason. I cite WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy on "...dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
For those who find the earlier discussions TL;DR I would like to restate briefly two reasons against a redirect. One can be summarised as "Granny, we looked you up in Wikipedia! What does BIGOTED mean?" The other is that though it was argued that since Brown apologised and retracted, the whole story is not to Duffy's discredit and so no harm is done by linking her to it, that overlooks that he clearly thought she was bigoted, and the resulting comment was by no means universally friendly - a Guardian article headed "Anger at Gillian Duffy, anger at all the people who weren't willing to stand up to her" produced readers' comments such as "She should be the one apologising", "this odious woman" etc. That article will fade off the Google hits quite soon, but a Wikipedia redirect would not. For the rest of her life it would link her to a story about an off-the-cuff remark she made which made the Prime Minister think she was bigoted, and would make some other people, like the Guardian columnist and many of her readers, think the same. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She's already showing up in context in a number of articles. Anyone searching for her will be presented with a bunch of articles that mention her rather than being directly sent to the one that has the most coverage. I'm not seeing how not having a redirect helps the issue you've raised. The reason we should have a redirect is A) usability B) our policies say we should. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh also, and perhaps more relevant to the DrV, this deletion wasn't handled within policy from what I can see (I'm missing the RfD discussion and the talk page is not only the wrong place for the discussion there wasn't any consensus I could see to delete it in any case). I don't fault the admin who deleted it, but it is certainly an issue. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This theoretical scenario of embarassment by her grandchildren was as flawed and assumptive back then as it is now. Wikipedia is chock full of information about people who did not actively cause their own notability. What's the bar for inclusion in these cases? Well, having a lasting role in British political history is as good as it gets. While she is of course not auditioning for X-factor off the back of it, she has not remained a private person. Because of this, and because the original event was so significant, and because it is now an ongoing frame of reference in politics, she is not dissapearing from Google. Quite the reverse actually. Her granchildren will never be in a world where they are not going to be able to find out within seconds why she is evidently historically notable and noted, even if she never ever tells them. She clearly has absolutely nothing to fear from having information about her on Wikipedia, which will present the facts accurately, neutraly, verifiably, and in historical context. It's hard to see this as prolonging victimisation at all, without a great deal of fear mongering and general unproven assumption. Wikipedia can only document facts, it can do nothing about dubious commentary of the incident at the time, or about Brown's gaffe itself, or even about what readers might think even if presented with all the facts. To somehow pretend that this all goes away as long as Wikipedia pretends in the face of all evidence that Gillian Duffy is not notable or noted, is arrogance in the extreme, and not what BLP's presumption of privacy is all about at all. MickMacNee (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate and transform into an article about the event, which is very notable and may well have changed the election outcome. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "a victim of another person's actions" is really the heart of the matter here, and it seems to be forgotten by those urging restoration here. For goodness sake the woman didn't actually do anything directly to gain this unfortunate infamy. This is all on Gordon Brown's shoulders, not hers. Maybe we could enlist a certain youtube personality to make a "Leave Gillian Duffy alone!" video. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarc, that's a fine reason to not have an article on her, but I don't think it's a reason to not have an article on the event. A) there is no policy I'm aware of that would promote such an action and in fact WP:BLP1E actively supports such an article B) she is covered in the mainstream media to the point that adding anything here is a drop in bucket if not a lake and C) your premise appears to be somewhat off as Nick has shown she has actively gotten into the media spotlight. I personally would prefer not to have an article on her as she's clearly a BLP1E at this point (if she writes a book or ends up on a reality we'll talk about that changing), but see not bar to an event article. Or to a redirect for that matter (again per WP:BLP1E...) Hobit (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I've spoken much for or against an event article, I'm fairly neutral on that at the moment. Though what can really be said about the event other than the blurb that is already in the election article, I have no idea. I am still quite opposed to a redirect from the woman's name, per my own and JohnCD's reasonings. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit to being lost on the redirect thing. I understand the goal of keeping her name out of things, but frankly it's already in a bunch of articles. The only thing adding the redirect will do is cause anyone searching for her to go directly there rather than getting a bunch of articles in a list and having to read those and click (the first one most likely which leads to the proposed target anyways). As far as I can tell nothing changes other than requiring the extra click. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To say that the incident "may well have changed the election outcome" is, frankly, nonsense. Its impact on the voters (as opposed to the press) is shown by the YouGov poll voting intention figures for Labour on the day of the incident, the next day when there was all the fuss, and the three following days: 27%, 27%, 28%, 27%, 28%. JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure WP:OR. Much like the curious grandchild theory. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not OR; verifiable fact. Don't you understand the difference? JohnCD (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The figures are the verifiable facts, that is all. Everything else is you making your own conclusions. And yes, I understand the difference between editors claiming it made no difference, and reliable sources saying it did. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The figures verify the fact that the incident had no measurable effect on declared voting intentions. Assertions to the contrary are commentators' opinions. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, not even close. OR is OR, even if the editor is using verifiable figures to support their conclusions. RS are RS, whether being used to support facts, or opinions. And after all, whether it had an effect is only ever going to be an opinion, informed or otherwise, unless someone finds an RS of a poll on that specific question. Find an RS that repeats your opinion, and you might have a point, but if it even exists, I'm expecting it to be in the minority. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The YouGov poll is a reliable source for voters' declared intentions. Its figures show that in the days immediately following the incident there was no fall-off in the proportion saying they intended to vote Labour. If you cannot see that point, others reading this thread can; I will leave the last word to you. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If they see it, let them agree here. I've no issue with that, I've got the WP:OR policy page on my side here. I think you've given them all they need to make a determination as to whether your statements represent a new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources, or whether your assertion that the Gillian Duffy remark "had no effect on the election" is a position that is infact attributable to a reliable, published source. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think if there is going to be an event article we need a good name for it. _that_ might actually be tricky without creating BLP issues. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gordon Brown live mic incident, or somesuch. If this has to happen then focus on who said it, not who it was said about. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bigotgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently exists in the main namespace, containing all of the edit history of the old article, and isn't protected. If having an article on the event were the issue here, I'm sure that the people arguing so extensively here would have done something in that vein with bigotgate in the three and a half months that it has remained unprotected yet entirely untouched by anyone in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is BLP1E, but BLP1E name articles should, if the name is already public, always redirect to the appropriate event article. So, endorse deletion of the full article, but overturn deletion of the redirect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Seraphimblade. There should be a redirect because some people will remember the name, and it should point at a general article about the election campaign and the significance of the incident in it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse Wikipedia has taken a small step in recognising the damage it can do to living people with the BLP1E policy. Especially we don't have articles on people who are unwilling victims in news cycles. This woman has courted no publicity and is not in herself notable. Sure the incident has significance for the election campaign (although, I think not much) and should be mentioned there. But story is about Brown, not Duffy. Basically, MickMacNee (and a small number of others) don't like our stance on BLP1E or NOTNEWS and so they picks at scabs. Enough. No to the article, and no to the redirect. Since Duffy is only notable because of the election, anyone looking is going to be looking for it, not her, and know the two are connected.--Scott Mac 13:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from above: In early August she was guest of honour at a Labour Party constituency event in Rochdale, and began to give televised interviews to ITV about the gaffe. She's not exactly unwilling at this point. Even ignoring that, the only impact of the redirect is a navigational aid to get you to the article you'd be looking for. I agree to no article about her, but there is one article that discusses her (well actually a few) and having the redirect isn't a BLP issue. BLP1E even tells us to make it. Do you have a policy-based reason for not having a redirect? Hobit (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't buy the argument that any of that elevates her into publicity-seeking status. If it were a book tour or a run around the paid lecture circuit, I'd probably change my mind on that. As noted above somewhere, her "fame" comes because of someone else's fuck-up. (I was going to make an analogy to how if you wanted to find out more info about George Allen's "macaca" incident, would you search for the guy who filmed it...only to find that that guy actually has a goddamned wikipedia article
 Facepalm Which will be going to AfD shortly. Tired of this idiot 1E cruft). Tarc (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you missed it Scott, but the evidence flatly contradicts your statements, for example, from the Daily Mirror a whole two months after the incident: "But after meeting Mr Miliband she said she was coming back to the fold – and was happy to back the shadow foreign secretary to be Labour leader with her union vote. The endorsement came after he went to visit Mrs Duffy at her home for a chat. The gran said: "He’s a really nice man and obviously very intelligent but also down to earth. I think he would be a great Prime Minister." She added: "I felt David really listened to my points of view and shared my concerns on the issues that matter to working people."[3] That is not an article about the election, it is not an article about Brown, it is not evidence of someone who is shy of publicity, and it is not evidence that she is not notable. She is notable enough to be sought out by the favourite for the Labour leadership race, and have her opinions on what makes a good PM be quoted in national newspapers. If you want to talk basics, "bascially", there is a hardcore of BLP activists on this site like yourself who make snap decisions, engage in prediction and sooth saying, in a wish to take the fundemental principles behind BLP and extend them far far far out of all proportion into the scope of the historical record, even if it leads them to make statements that are provably and patently wrong once the facts from reliable commentators emerge, both at the time, and months later. They claim to speak for the 'victims', but the real victims here are the readers who are being lied to and having their political history airbrushed infront of their very eyes. They are effectively acting as editors in the newspaper sense, rather than the encyclopedia sense, and are making (or distorting) the news, rather than accurately and neutrally reflecting the news and historical record, and it is an abuse of our fundemental mission. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your post rather makes my point. You don't like that the community is slowly coming around to a much stricter view of our responsibility to living people and you're trying to fight it on all fronts. So, because of an incident an election-charged media tried to draw out a soap-opera story about Brown and the poor pensioner, you want to write her biography? That's certainly a facet of the election that ought to be recorded in a discussion of the election, and how the media handled it, but it does not make her personally notable, nor does it mean we have to take a tabloid-esque prurient interest in Duffy and her relationship with the Labour Party. We are an encyclopedia not a news aggregater, and what is encyclopedic here is the phenomena she represents in terms of British media and politics, or (perhaps) what the incident illustrates about the character of Gordon Brown. We just don't need to do "the life and times of Mrs D." to inform our readers about that. It must not be a case of "where the Sun leads, Wikipedia will follow" - we are better than that! (And whatever we think, we will not use people's lives as a means of making a POINT in some philosophical inter-wikipedia discussion. If you want to change a policy direction, then open a policy discussion, NOT a review of some woman's biography. --Scott Mac 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott, to me at least the key point is that the community hasn't come to the point of having a policy against redirects in a case like this. Can you point to any consensous about redirects and BLPs? Hobit (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Point me to the place where is says...." is generally not a strong argument. The fact is that there is far more scrutiny, and questioning, of such things, and the old arguments "well this is cheap, and policy doesn't prevent it" are not so convincing when we are talking about living people as (regrettably) they once were. --Scott Mac 16:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. If you're claiming that the community has come to a point where redirects like this should be deleted, I'd expect there to be some discussion on that point... Hobit (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering about that too. I understand the logic of the 'we don't need to write her biography' argument. But, a redirect that points to wherever the incident is discussed doesn't seem outré. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No policy change is required. The over-reach and agenda driving of 1E over and above what it mandates is on your part, not mine. How on Earth any sane person take a dispationate look at all the evidence presented above, and remotely describe the coverage as just a 'soap opera' is completely beyond me. It is not Heat Magazine covering this, it is The Independent, although I'm sure you will start redefining those RS as tabloids for the purposes of BLP v2.0, I've seen it attempted before. It's your spin, your agenda, your paranoia, and it's your problem if the policy and the evidence don't support your appeals to emotion and distortion of the evidence. This is not simple news aggregation of one incident's coverage, it went beyond that months ago. She is a frame of reference herself now. Not a celebrity, not a victim, but a significant part of British political debate, and in particular, the problems of the Labour party in the post-Blair era. You are simply blind to bullet proof evidence of that, like the examples given above in RS, which have absolutely nothing to do with either the election or Brown anymore. The election is over and he has gone, yet Duffy is still considered relevant and noteworthy. If you disagree, then actualy pick one of the sources and rebut it, rather than simply talking in vague terms which have been manufactured in your head to support your idea of what the reality is, rather than the actual reality supported by the actual evidence. You give me a rational and objective explanation as to how the reporting of her meeting with Milliband, or the coverage of the immigration issue, or the problems of Labour reconnecting with voters, or anything else, that has come months after the event, is "tabloid-esque prurient interest". I never sourced The Sun once, I used The Mirror for convenience for being first to hand, but it's all been similarly considered notable and reported in the highest quality coverage you could ever hope to find. It's not about documenting 'the life and times of Mrs D' (although again, you flatly ignore RS's actually doing this), it is answering the question 'who is Mrs D. and why is she continually being referred to in coverage of British politics?'. 'What occured to give this person continuing and apparently significant status in British politics'? etc etc. The exact sorts of question readers expect Wikipedia to be able to answer, without lying to them, or offering up lame excuses based on imaginary threats, or amazingly, pretending she never ever existed, and if she did, it was just because of the stoopid tabloid meedja and their stoopid trashy reporting. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "She is a frame of reference herself now" - what does that actually mean? She's a granny who met a PM and got the sharp end of his tongue. She illustrates something, so use her as an illustration in the relevant articles: that's not "pretending she never ever existed", it is telling the history in context and in proportion to its significance. No one is pretending she never existed, or erasing her from the relevant articles, we're just not wanting to create mythical "frames of reference" around people's private lives. That's what newspapers do, because there readers (or some of them) are too thick to understand the issues without reducing it to anecdote and neo-celebrity. It isn't so much that we are not a tabloid here, it is that we are different from newspapers of whatever quality (see WP:NOT). We are an encyclopedia, recording the "second draft" of history. That means we record facts in context, and don't simply record a string of "here what happened on Thursday" stories, or use particular people as "frames of reference". The frame of reference here is the political issues, the media style, the election, and the rise and fall of a Prime Minister, not who Mrs Duffy is, or what she thinks of Mr. Milliband this week.--Scott Mac 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It means that her name is now associated with a political issue, and problem for Labour, as evidenced by the sources. I'd detailed this to death, it should be easy to pick up. And I think you make far too much assumptions about what would be in any proposed article, I for one would not be writing this in the style you seem to think people would. But that's an editorial issue, it is not a justification for deletion and salting. Any second draft of history that portrays Gillian Duffy as only relevant to Brown or the election, and actively prevents people finding out about her role and relevance, will simply be innaccurate and discredited by the wealth of alternative evidence, like real reference works. She was maybe a 1E then (although we have plenty of articles to even disprove that), but she is not now. People who think that the only way you extend beyond being a 1E is by virtue of a second totally unrelated event, just haven't understood the policy. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. She ought not to be the subject of an article, because she is not "a frame of reference herself". She is NOT the subject of what is relevant here, she is the object, being used as a point of interest in the political and media discussions. Thus, we record her in content in our articles on those events and discussions. Why? Because outside the politics and the "Brown story" she is not notable. There is nothing notable about her other than "Brown did this" or "Labour were in an election" or "here's how the media treat people". That's the whole essence of BLP1E - not making the object into the subject. Newspapers (even reasonable ones) tend to do the opposite - they tell the big story by anecdote and human interest. We are not a newspaper - not even a good newspaper.--Scott Mac 18:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She is not simply a point of interest, her real life and her real opinions are very much the subject here, as well as her already notable role in the election, which is why she gets continuing coverage herself, and not just being continually namechecked as an anecdote. Your apparent contempt for the entire news media seems to be what is driving your judgement as to what is a 1E or not, rather than the measures actually detailed in the actual policy - privacy, notability, historical significance. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I'm shocked that anyone could be as biased as to suggest that there shouldn't at least be a redirect for someone who got, and still gets, so much international media coverage. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. At a bare minimium, there should have been an AFD on this. I'd suggest that anyone editor who doesn't believe there shouldn't at least be a redirect is clearly and grossly biased, and should be banned from Wikipedia for at least one decade. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I Can Has Hyperbole? Tarc (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, pretty much the definition of WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you arguing for keeping both the article and redirect deleted or just the redirect? Hobit (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the article would be enough, but I'm not sure what an appropriate redirect target would be. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [13] was the target discussed above. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would seem reasonable. It seems better that the title redirect to some relevant article (but be protected), because I expect it will be a likely search term for some time to come, so people should not be presented with a deleted article and no indication on where to find one — as they will then probably proceed to try to create one, and probably complain here when they can't. The principle of least astonishment should apply. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for closer I'm biased, but here is what I think is an accurate summary of !votes, please correct/add as needed. I'm doing this as I run out, so sorry about any errors or omissions. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| !voter
|
BLP
|
Redirect
|
Event article
|
| MickMacNee (nominator)
|
overturn
|
overturn
|
create (I think)
|
| hobit
|
weak endorse
|
overturn
|
create
|
| Alzarian16
|
endorse
|
overturn
|
create
|
| Tarc
|
strong endorse
|
endorse
|
neutral
|
| Andrew Lenahan
|
endorse
|
?????
|
create
|
| Mattingbgn
|
endorse
|
??????
|
??????
|
| Spartaz
|
endorse
|
neutral
|
"editorial decision"
|
| RegentsPark
|
endorse I think
|
overturn
|
create
|
| JohnCD
|
endorse
|
endorse
|
oppose I think
|
| Freakshownerd
|
endorse I think?
|
overturn I think
|
create
|
| Seraphimblade
|
endorse
|
overturn
|
?????
|
| Sam Blacketer
|
endorse
|
overturn
|
?????
|
| Scott Mac
|
strong endorse
|
endorse
|
opposed to creation I think.
|
| Nfitz
|
overturn (I think)
|
overturn
|
?????
|
| Stifle
|
endorse
|
overturn
|
?????
|
| JoshuaZ
|
endorse (implied I think)
|
overturn
|
?????
|
- I think this reads far more into the debate than is here. We are reviewing the deletion of Gillian Duffy. And it looks to me like there isn't a consensus to overturn that deletion (which there would need to be, given this is a BLP). That's really as far as it goes. Some people may have commented on other connected issues, but there's been no full discussion here, and in any case DRV's focus is narrowly on the legitimacy of the deletion. This ought to be close as "deletion endorsed" and that's it for now.--Scott Mac 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus has already rejected an "event article" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident. If someone wants to bring that to DRV, we can discuss it separately.--Scott Mac 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this discussion shows that an event article is now reasonable. This doesn't mean it won't be brought to AfD of course, I've no doubt it will. That said, I _think_ the table correctly labels the various opinions. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This DrV clearly _can_ discuss the deletion of the redirect, and I'd say there is consensus to overturn that one, especially as that deletion was done out-of-process from what I can tell (not at RfD and no clear consensus to delete on the talk page discussion...) Hobit (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This debate is confused as to what it is talking about - which makes the discerning of opinions on that table highly dubious (it imputed views to me on matters I've never considered). As far as I can see, this is DRV of the deletion of Gillian Duffy although some people are talking about the article some about the redirect (I've never expressed a view on the redirect, so again the table is quite wrong). The event article was condemned by a healthy consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident. If you think that closure was wrong, then I suggest you bring it to a separate DRV. There's not enough discussion of it here (and the closer hasn't been informed) for this DRV to overturn it in passing. (I make no comment about whether it ought to be overturned or not).--Scott Mac 08:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I think the DrV can certainly address what goes in place of that red link above. At the moment it seems people prefer to not have an article, but would prefer a redirect. Also, your statement "Enough. No to the article, and no to the redirect" is what I based your opposition to the redirect on. Hobit (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the deleter of the redirect was notified of this discussion some time ago and has indicated support for the redirect [14]. Hobit (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, sorry. I'm willing to concede: 1. that there's (although it isn't that clear) a consensus to have a redirect to the election article 2. the non-existence of a BLP is clearly upheld. 3. There's insufficient discussion either way to determine an "event article". The Afd of the deletion of the "Bigoted woman" event article thus stands (it hasn't been reviewed here, in truth), although I note closer didn't close the door on further consideration. The deleted I was referring to was that of the "event" article.--Scott Mac 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The early closure of that event article Afd was taken to DRV here, where it closed as no consensus, whereby any new 'event' article would not be subject to speedy deletion, and instead would require another Afd, done properly this time. [15] MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn In particular, overturn the deletion of the redirect. There should be either a mention or a discussion of the incident somewhere and having a redirect to that from her name is consistent with standard practices for how we handle BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
