David Boothroyd wrote
<snip>
The question is
not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
not to mention it in the article; the subsidiary issue is, should that
question be answered in the affirmative, it should be linked to.
From WP:BLP:
[...] insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of
relevance to the person's notability.
NB that it is the _person's notability_ in question. It is not just a matter of
whether the blog has some notability, for close watchers of UK politics. It is a question
of whether an MP, attacked by a blog, is in some way characterised for notability by such
an attack. You are saying 'the only': i.e. the only pair of blog and MP in such a
relationship.
3) The fact that Anne Milton is quoted by Sandra
Howard asserting that
Tim Ireland was "stalking" her through the weblog is particularly
significant. It is a notably extreme accusation.
Well, the jury will have to describe whether objecting to such harassment makes Anne
Milton more notable than otherwise. Or whether she is reacting as a normal person might
well do. Of course being a normal person among Westminster politicians could be notability
in itself?
I think the case for saying the blog must be mentioned in the Anne Milton article is
weakish.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information