David Boothroyd wrote
Charles R. Matthews writes:
David Boothroyd wrote:
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.
I think you have slightly misread the policy. The point being made there
is that, in the case of negative material which does engage WP:BLP,
the negative material must have a relevance to the reason why the
person is considered notable. Therefore, if there was a blog set up to
attack Anne Milton for her treatment of her neighbours, that would fall
foul of that requirement because she is not notable by virtue of living
next to someone. However, in this case we have a blog which attacks her
for her political position: that passes the requirement because she is
notable for holding a political position.
This of course assumes that the mere existence of the blog does engage
WP:BLP. I do not see how this is the case. It is not even potentially
defamatory of person X to say that person Y does not like them.
> > 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.
That does beg the question of whether the existence of
the blog or its
contents amounts to "harassment", or whether such harassment would be
over and above the level of scrutiny and fair comment anyone might
expect when standing for public office. I haven't made my mind up on
that.
Some tension between your two points, here. Milton, we assume, commented on the blog, i.e.
she reacted to its existence. There might be some cause to include the blog in the article
if her reaction had been extreme (e.g. legal measures). But if it is being argued that her
reaction was in any sense over-reaction, then indeed including the blog in the Milton
article is a negative comment ("MP lashes back at blogger shock", in tabloid
terms); and so the BLP guideline is relevant. This only makes for Milton's notability
if politicians rarely do this.
I really think, outside the rather airless atmosphere of Westminster politics, this gets
the big 'so what?'.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information