Talk:Bob Ainsworth/Archive 1

Archive 1

photo

Can we find a photo to put here? Matthewfelgate 23:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob Ainsworth and the IMG

Having spoken with other former members of the IMG or its successor the ISG, it seems very clear that he was known to people in the Coventry branch but was not at all close. I've spoken to someone who was a candidate member in that branch at that time, and I just don't think it accurate that he was a candidate member for so long. Indeed, no-one is a candidate member that long: candidacy lasts 2 or 3 months, not years, and then the candidate has either dropped out or joined. it's quite credible that he only went to one or two meetings. I am very unhappy that we are using Hitchens' opinion piece [1]to reference this. Hitchens' article references unspecified other articles and from what I can see, the only reference in other article is to this page. So I am adding the fact tag and removing the reference. If we can find a solid reference then we'll add that. If not we should remove the claim. I am also removing him from Former members of the IMG, since he was not. --Duncan (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens' article is not the only source on the web, there is this from the Morning Star on 10 July 2009. This does not mean their source was not this article in its previous state, Ainsworth's IMG connection was introduced four and half years ago in this edit, but one assumes they will have CPB contacts too. Also in the Mail itself. Philip Cross (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is in the region of conspiracy theory and original research. There are articles which refer to the rumour, but no primary sources. The IMG, of course, didn't even exist then. In 1982 it had changed its name to the Socialist League. I've edited it to say its a rumour, which I guess I can live with. But without a reference, should be include rumour? Following Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons I notes that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Therefore I don't think we should treat a report of a rumour as a source: we need a verifiable fact. --Duncan (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Duncan" might be so kind as to get in touch with me at the 'Mail on Sunday'. Others, including the 'Morning Star' (which might be assumed to be better informed in this subject than some other papers) have confidently made the suggestion that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member', and, while it would be wrong and unfair to assume that they used Wikipedia as their sole source, they did not name any source at all, and the Wikipedia article originally contained no references. Can any expert work out from the history who contributed the suggestion? I cannot. I have also been unable to find any other reference to this, either on electronic or cutttings library searches or general Internet searches.

This of course does not mean that no such references exist, only that I haven't found them. Even so, it seems to me to require further research. Because of this, and because I regard the suggestion as significant, I thought it important to check the Wikipedia claim, and duly did so, by the obvious method of approaching someone I am obliged to describe as a 'spokesperson' for Mr Ainsworth. This spokesperson has sought to deal with the allegation with a 'non-denial denial', as I recorded in my MoS article. That is to say, the spokesperson's statement says Mr Ainsworth was never a member of the IM. This is not in fact what was alleged, but a not-very-interested or clued-up person might mistake it for a proper denial. The spokesperson said a number of other things in conversation, most of which are recorded in my article. I responded to this, and to the statement, with the series of questions now published on my blog. The spokesperson has today made it clear that there will be no further response from Mr Ainsworth. If I were Mr Ainsworth, I would do a bit more to clear this up. But that is his affair.

I am still interested in establishing the truth of the matter. So if "Duncan" has any relevant information, I would be glad to hear from him, or from anyone else with relevant knowledge. I really do think it is important to know if the Secretary of State for Defence was associated closely with such a group, and what his attitude is towards it now. I find the statement's suggestion that he always disagreed with everything it stands for rather contradictory, given that in the same statement he says he attended at least two of its meetings.

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, don't use my username in inverted commas. Wikipedia's policy is that users should be referred to by their usernames. The inverted commas could infer that I am not called Duncan, and that innuendo is a breach of our policy to assume good faith. It is my username and it should be used.--Duncan (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I traced the reference to this edit four and a half years ago and raised it with the user responsible, as Mr Hitchens did shortly after posting the above. Philip Cross (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Mr Cross. I followed his research. I woud appeal to anyone else with knowledge of this to help clear the matter up. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has different standards from journalism. I'm not commenting on Clockback's journalism, but on whether the reference meets Wikpedia's standards. If we cannot find a verifiable source then it should be removed. I'll give it 24 hours, then move it here. --Duncan (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was in error on this point. In articles that relate to living persons, unverified material should be deleted straight away and not copied to the Talk page. --Duncan (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If Duncan's name is Duncan then that's fine by me. If the inverted commas upset him, I'll stop using them. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's not, given common practice here, but my aim was to draw attention to the fact that we don't know who we're dealing with most of the time, than to suggest he was acting in bad faith. My name certainly isn't "Clockback", the person who placed the original claim about the IMG in the entry assures us on his talk page that the name he uses here isn't his real one. I disapprove of the anonymity common on the Web, and I think some of the problems we are having here are the result of that anonymity. Two editors appear to have personal direct knowledge of the matter. Neither of them can be traced and asked to elaborate or provide sources or references. Anyone, by contrast, can contact me, and I have given a great deal of detail about how and where I obtained my information.

Nor am I sure what Duncan means by saying that Wikpedia's standards are different from those of journalism. It seems to me that I've made more of an effort to check this story, and to qualify it, than Wikipedia editors have. I've also done so without the protection of anonymity. If Duncan proposes removing the reference, I propose he replaces it with a summary of my encounter with Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson. It is significant and interesting that a Cabinet Minister, in his adult life, should be closely in touch with a revolutionary radical organisation. It is also significant and interesting that he is reticent when asked about it. These are both verified facts. Mr Ainsworth plainly had some contact with the IMG, and is apparently unwilling to provide full details of it. Duncan, meanwhile, appears by his own account to know far more about this than I do. Could he please share it with us, in the interest of raising Wikipedia's standards to the levels of those practised by journalists? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clockback is missing the point on a two things. First, if I know something, and there are no reliable references, then it's not good enough for Wikipedia's policy. That would be what we call original research. We have different standards, encyclopedic ones, which differ from journalism. What I do know is that the reply of Ainsworth's people is accurate. You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate. Candidacy is to membership as being a PPC is to being an MP. (Sorry, that's not a good comparison). Second, usernames are names here: they allow people to be known to others and they are unique and functional. If you want to write here on Wikipedia, you have to accept the rules. --Duncan (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced claim of association with IMG. This is absolutely something which WP:BLP policy requires reliable sources for, and currently there aren't even disputed ones - zip, nada. (diff). Rd232 ^talk 10:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a comment on rd232's talk page, asking him to reconsider this action, which seems to me to pre-empt and ignore the discussion we are having here. The undisputed source for Mr Ainsworth's association with the IMG is now Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson, who confirms that he attended meetings of the organisation, but declines to answer detailed questions about it. this is simply not 'zip, nada'. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has not been "pre-empted"; WP:BLP requires the controversial unsourced claims are removed immediately, but this does not prevent them being re-added after sourcing and discussion. Provide a published reliable source and we can discuss this further. PS WP is an encyclopedia, and in an important sense isn't supposed to be "interesting", because everything in it should already have been published before by reliable sources. WP editors are compiling existing knowledge, not creating new. Rd232 ^talk 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was I, debating this with Duncan and Mr Cross, when rd232 swoops down from on high and simply removes the reference. He doesn't modify it to deal with new information. He removes it, dismissing objections (inaccurately) as "zip, nada" . That's what I mean by "pre-empted". My point was then, and is now, that the reference should not be removed without something being substituted for it. I have obtained, in my job as a newspaper reporter, an on the record statement from Mr Ainsworth's own taxpayer-funded spokesperson, made on his behalf and with his knowledge, confirming that he attended IMG meetings at the time stated. I really do not know what could be more reliable than that, however prejudiced anyone may be against me personally. I have also published a list of supplementary questions which I put to the same spokesperson, which that spokesperson has declined to answer. I think that unwillingness to answer is worth recording. Mr rd232 has stopped claiming that this is "zip, nada", unsurprisingly since it so evidently isn't. He now relies on general Wikipedia rules, which oddly enough have allowed this reference to stand unchallenged by anyone (including its subject) for four years. Now that there's actually some unequivocal, openly-sourced information provided by a named and traceable person, the reference is removed under a rule(the use of which seems to me rather rudely to suggest that I haven't done my job properly)- whereas it was allowed to remain for all that time when the source was pseudonymous and there was no factual reference at all? This is barmy. And why the rush to remove it now? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

First, you're subject to the same WP rules as everyone else. If you publish these allegations in a major paper, we can discuss reporting that. Qua WP editor your original research has no standing. Second, it doesn't matter how long it's been there unsourced; WP working as it does, this happens all the time. It's fixed now by taking it out pending discussion, and unless a reliable source is forthcoming, that's how it'll stay. Rd232 ^talk 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, thanks for that. --Duncan (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall try to persist. I do not think Rd232 or Duncan are paying attention to what I am saying. There is a published source. The following has been published in The Mail on Sunday, (19th July 2009, p.27):

"I can recall members of the International Marxist Group yelling ‘Victory to the IRA!’ on student demonstrations. So I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student. I think the links between ‘New Labour’ and the revolutionary Marxist Left are extensive, interesting and important. So I asked a ‘spokesperson’ about it. She said: ‘He was never a member.’ Well, that looks like a denial, but isn’t. The story says he was a candidate for membership, not that he was a member. The source said: ‘A friend who was in the organisation tried to persuade him to join.’ Apparently he went to ‘a couple’ of meetings? Only two, or more? No answer. The source wouldn’t say. The source said he just went because he was open-minded. So would he have gone to a BNP meeting, being so open-minded? The source: 'Certainly not.’Then why go to a meeting of a group that supported the IRA? The spokesperson floundered. Eventually I was sent a written statement asserting that Mr Ainsworth’s brush with the IMG ‘reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say’. If he had such a firm view already, why go once, let alone twice? When I asked several supplementary questions, the answer was silence. I shall publish the unanswered questions on my blog and continue to press for answers."

The article can be found on the web at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200583/PETER-HITCHENS-How-long-abort-old-too.html

So can my supplementary questions at

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/07/the-defence-secretary-and-the-international-marxist-group.html

As is clear, I am the author of thsi published source. I would think it invidious to post it myself on this entry, but I really don't see why othr editors should act as if it doesn't exist.

Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clockback. Take a look here - WP:VERIFY - at our policy for verifiability. Your article does not verify that he was a candidate member. Your article says that you've read unspecified reports. If we accepted that as a standard, then we could accept conspiracy theories and original research. We don't. Take a look also at our policy on sources - WP:SOURCES. There are no primary sources so far good enough for us: note that under our policy a self-published statement by Ainsworth himself would not be good enough. Ainsworth had such a fleeting connection - unlike Darling, for example, who sold the press and identified himself with the IMG - and wasn't moving left at that time so I think you're not likely to find a primary source. This business had broken a primary rule for Wikpedia: Wikipedia started to become a primary source for that material. That is not our role. People citing rumours from other people is not verification. --Duncan (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One more point. I would also argue that a statement that Ainsworth attended a couple of IMG meetings in 1982 (which perhaps can be verified) does not meet our standards for notability. It would also be out of balance to the rest of the article, which is underlaboured.--Duncan (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I do so wish people would actually read what I am saying. I am not arguing for the retention of the unreferenced allegation that Mr Ainsworth was a "candidate member " of the IMG. I am arguing for it not to be removed until and unless it is replaced with the referenced fact that Mr Ainsworth says he attended IMG meetings in the early 1980s, but refuses to answer further questions on his contacts with that organisation. Duncan has himself said (22.56, 22nd July) that "You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate." From my outside knowledge of the IMG in the early 1970s, when I belonged to the rival IS but had many contacts with IMG members, I would very much endorse that. You didn't just go to their meetings, and members had code-names. I have read the policy. I cannot see that it really covers this instance. If I were not the author of the newspaper article in which Mr Ainsworth's attendance was confirmed, matters would be much more straightforward. Everyone could agree that it was a valid reference. So why not do that anyway? As I have said, I don't feel it's my place to make a reference to my own work, so I am most reluctant to alter the entry unilaterally, though I have provided the references for anyone who wants to. But I am asking other editors to treat my story as they would any other published newspaper story. Referring to Mr Ainsworth's statement as 'self-published' is absurd. Mr Ainsworth did not volunteer the information. By the way, Alistair Darling's spokesman denies that he was ever a member of the IMG, a fact I have also recorded in the Mail on Sunday. The fact that the Ainsworth reference is 'unlaboured' is due to the profound uninterestingness of Mr Ainsworth. This is not a reason for excluding from it what is perhaps the single most interesting fact that is known about him. On the contrary. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any reply from the supporters of the excision of all reference to the IMG, I will seek whatever arbitration is available on Wikipedia. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, well sorry, the version of the article I looked at had no sources and I missed the mention on the talk page of Hitchens' article and the Morning Star editorial. Nonetheless, Hitchens' article references uncited "stories" (the Star?), which I haven't been able to find, and certainly what has been published (including the unsourced, uncredited Morning Star editorial aside) is insufficiently strong to support the claim. Furthermore, I would think any arbitration (or dispute resolution) attempt would probably take into account the fact that Hitchens in the published article seems primarily interested in linking Ainsworth with support for a terrorist group (that "victory for the IRA" slogan) in what is hard not to think of as a smear. Nonetheless, if Hitchens wishes to publish more material, we can consider that. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Clockback that's given me a smile. Thanks. But, honestly, what we have here is a content dispute. Arbitration is really for intractable disputes where, often, more than one participant is breaking policy. This on the other hand is really clear, and there's no dispute about how to implement our policies. This issue is that you think (and that's your right) that our policies on self-publication and interestingness are mistaken. But arbitration won't lead to any change in Wikipedia's core policies. So, until we have a indisputable reference, I can't see this claim going in to the article. --Duncan (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least that produced a response. But people (who is this 'we', by the way? What does Duncan mean by 'our' policies? I'm not part of any 'we' Is he? If so, what is it? ) still aren't reading what I'm saying. And that is why this is becoming an intractable dispute, in need of arbitration. We could easily have had multiple reversions by now if I hadn't chosen to discuss it instead, and had acted unilaterally to pre-empt discussion as others , in my view, have done. I much prefer to discuss first, achieve agreement and change the wording by consensus. I continue to seek this. But if others simply don't listen to argument, then I think we need to break out of what is becoming a closed circle in which, for whatever reasons, or none, some people wish to remove some information from the public domain. We all of us know how important Wikipedia has become as a first source of reference. That's why we bother. But couldn't Duncan and rd232 be a little less partisan? This isn't a matter of 'policies', whatever they are (the use of this expression makes ME smile, reminding as it does of shops saying it's 'company policy' not to stock goods I want to buy, or not to refund certain purchases,etc. What it means is 'This is what we have decided to do, like it or lump it'). Well, the problem with this 'policy' is that it mis-describes the nature of the information I seek to have included. It's a matter of plain fact. A story in the Mail on Sunday, quoting Bob Ainsworth's spokesperson answering what are clearly unwecome questions is not 'self-publication by Mr Ainsworth. The acknowledged attendance of a Secretary of State for Defence at meetings of a secretive revolutionary organisation is not 'uninteresting' . What would Duncan and rd232 say if someone tried to excise parallel information about a member of the Shadow Cabinet attending BNP meetings in his thirties, which had appeared, say , in the 'Daily Mirror'? Not hard to guess. Some people may not like the Mail on Sunday, bafflingly enough, but it is a major established newspaper, professionally produced, which operates under the laws of England, laws which seriously penalise the publication of false or defamatory stories. I am not citing, or proposing to cite, or arguing that Wikipedia should cite the 'Morning Star' or other newspaper articles before mine, whose source seems to have been the original Wikipedia claim about 'candidate membership'. That would be circular. Here and now we have new information. This is the wording I suggest: "Mr Ainsworth confirmed in 2009 that he had attended 'a couple' of meetings of the International Marxist Group in the early 1980s". That's it. That's all I'm asking for. It could also quote his spokesperson's gloss on this, if people felt it fair to do so. I have given the reference, or references, which could then be given. Why not? Those who go to the reference can see what Disembrangler describes as a 'smear' and form their own judgement. I'd only say that the government of which Mr Ainsworth has been a loyal and enthusiastic member actually granted 'Victory to the IRA' in the Belfast Agreement of 1998. And I don't think any member or supporter of the IMG would deny that its members did support this slogan, which I think even appeared on the front page of its newspaper, or that it is a good indication of the sort of positions the IMG took. Sometimes the truth damages. That does not mean that it is a smear to state the truth.Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, when I write of 'we' and of 'our policies' I am indeed including you. If you participate in Wikipedia, then you follow the community's policies. I object to your statement that I or other editors are partisan. That is untrue, unevidenced and in breach of our policy to assume good faith. --Duncan (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In an official history of the IS originally published in 1975 by Ian Birchall we find the following (under the heading "1969-1970: Towards a Workers’ Party"): "IS’s position was always one of unconditional support for the IRA in the struggle against imperialism". As you were saying, "Sometimes the truth damages. That does not mean that it is a smear to state the truth." Philip Cross (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

@Clockback: To spell it out, Hitchens' article ([2]) reports seeing stories that Bob was a "candidate member". Doesn't say where, which would allow us to draw on those. Reports a denial from the group that Bob was a member, but expresses scepticism about what that means. Conclusions? Hitchens doesn't draw any, he just leaves innuendo and speculation hanging. Just not enough to support any factual claims in the WP entry (and reporting Hitchens' speculation would be WP:UNDUE). PS The subheading in the mail article is "The Minister and the IRA fan club". Frankly I'm wondering if the Mail's lawyers were awake when they cleared that (but perhaps they guessed, correctly it seems, that Ainsworth wouldn't want to bring attention to the issue by suing). At any rate, it has "blatant smear" written all over it, not "sober attempt to reveal the truth". PPS As for clockback's remarks about partisanship - I have no love for Labour, Ainsworth, the Mail, Hitchens, or IMG. The issue is sourcing, and if Ainsworth were trying to push something similarly unsourced on Hitchen's WP entry I'd reject that. PPPS Clockback keeps referring to the info as being "interesting". I may have already made this point, but WP isn't supposed to be "interesting". It's supposed to be boring, in the sense that it reports only information well established elsewhere. That's what encyclopedia means. Rd232 ^talk 07:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To spell it out. Fact: Bob Ainsworth attended meetings of the IMG in 1982-83. Fact: This is a significant part of his political history. Fact: There is a source for this story. All the rest is ad hominem stuff directed against me, fun but futile, and infantile political prejudice directed against my newspaper. This is an encyclopaedia. You should learn to rise above such things. Once again, since none of you answers this point (despite claims of impartiality) if it emerged that a Shadow Cabinet member had attended BNP meeetings, and he admitted it on the record in a left-wing British national newspaper, all those who oppose the inclusion of comparable information about Mr Ainsworth would be in favour of its inclusion in the case of the hypothetical Tory. Fact, prejudice and political bias are impeding the inclusion of a fact in Wikipedia. Now, are you going to put the fact in, with the reference supplied, or am I going to put this up for arbitration? PS, Mr Cross must know that, as well as being entirely frank about my revolutionary past, I have expressed unqualified regret for my revolutionary positions many times, and accepted without reservation that they were wrong and wicked. I won't go into the daft Trotskyist theology of "unconditional but critical support" just now. But I might add, from a purely personal position, that I have always opposed and hated terrorism, and that I pursued and obtained the expulsion of a member of York IS, in 1972, because he had joined in the shouting of 'Victory to the IRA' on a demonstration. He subsequently joined...the IMG, where he was much happier. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if it makes you happy, I'll address this point: "if it emerged that a Shadow Cabinet member had attended BNP meeetings, and he admitted it on the record in a left-wing British national newspaper..." - then that admission, in his own words, would be citable from the published source. This hypothetical example is irrelevant to the present case as it currently stands. Rd232 ^talk 09:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd urge you (again) to look at verification policy. What you personally think is true is irrelevant. What matters is what's verifiable from published sources (sources considered reliable sources in relation to the info cited). Rd232 ^talk 09:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is so difficult about this? RD232 says "What you personally think is true is irrelevant. What matters is what's verifiable from published sources (sources considered reliable sources in relation to the info cited)." Couldn't agree more. It's what Mr Ainsworth says is true that matters. That's why I keep referring to the published source for the very limited information I think should be displayed - namely my article published in the Mail on Sunday, reference given above. Mr Ainsworth's refusal to discuss the matter further is also recorded in the blog entry on the MoS site, to which I also provide a reference. Let us go through the stages here. The claim ( now removed) on Wikipedia was that Mr Ainsworth had been a 'candidate member ' of the IMG. I accept that this cannot be verified, and should not stand . My contention, once again, is that it should not be removed and replaced with nothing, but be replaced by a an acknowledged fact (see above) which can be verified. The response of my opponents seems to be that , because I, a person they disapprove of, verified it, in a paper they dislike, it doesn't count, and even if it did, it's not significant enough to include. These are silly objections. Why? They have nothing to do with the rules, which are that you shouldn't insert stuff that's not verifiable from an identifiable source. First, Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson did not deny the claim in toto. Next, the spokesperson did not fully confirm the claim. If that were all, it might conceivably excuse this ludicrous pettifogging. But it's not. What then happened was that Mr Ainwsorth's spokesperson said specifically that Mr Ainsworth had attended IMG meetings. My newspaper then published this unquestioned and unquestionable fact. This is the source for the mention I seek to have included. This was in answer to questions asked on the basis of claims made in Wikipedia. But so what? That has no bearing on the status of the information now. It is, as I say, an independent fact, which does not require any reference to the previous claims. It is, repeat, a free-standing fact. Please just put it in the entry. Meanwhile, I shall seek help. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Reminder: use : for indenting comments. Reminder: assume good faith, no personal attacks, and WP:NOTFORUM. Summary of the relevant part of the previous discussion: no source sufficient to include the claim that Ainsworth was connected with the IMG has been presented (yet). Hitchens' article is insufficient, since it claims to rely on unidentified "stories" - it does not itself actually make the claim. Unless further sources are forthcoming, that's an end of the matter. Escalation of the issue without further sources is a waste of time, but if Clockback insists, I suggest WP:BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is inaccurate. My story does not 'claim to rely' ( do try to avoid personal attacks) or even 'rely' on 'unidentified sources'. The story is the result of direct questions put to Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson, and answered, in that spokesperson's official capacity. These questions happen to have been prompted by the Wikipedia entry, but could equally have been prompted by private information, intuition or pure curiosity. There is no actual relation between the old unsourced Wikipedia allegation, and the new factual statement obtained thanks to my questions. The statement does not rely in any way on the rightness (or wrongness), or origin, or character of the previous Wikipedia claim. As I say above, it is a freestanding, referenced fact with a reliable source. I hope this logic is now clear. If it is not, perhaps RD232 could point out which bit of it is not clear, where my logic is at fault or where it is factually incorrect. Thanks to this, there now exists a reliable source, based upon which this entry can say that Mr Ainsworth attended IMG meetings in the 1980s. When RD232 says "there is no source sufficient to conclude the claim that Ainsworth was connected with the IMG" he is again inaccurate. There is no 'claim' that Mr Ainsworth ' was connected' with the IMG. there is a statement by Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson that he attended IMG meetings. As for the source, I maintain that the source is entirely sufficient. If RD232 believes it is not, then he needs to explain what is wrong with it, and why he believes it should not be trusted. This he has so far entirely failed to do. Establishing the truth is never 'a waste of time'. Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "there is a statement by Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson that he attended IMG meetings." Well if I'd seen a source that supported a sentence like that, the discussion would have proceeded differently. Perhaps you could quote the relevant statement and link to the source. All I've seen is inference threaded between denials you claim are insufficiently comprehensive. Rd232 ^talk 09:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have missed what Hitchens' blog says about this: "When I sought more information about Mr Ainsworth's alleged links with the IMG, I talked to a 'spokesperson' who, after an unsatisfactory phone conversation, sent me a written statement. This is what it said: 'Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say.'"[3] I think any statement that could back up would be covered by WP:UNDUE, but you could try asking others (WP:BLPN, WP:RFC). It doesn't help that Hitchens puts spokesperson in inverted commas. Rd232 ^talk 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And while I am demolishing the facts and logic of the 'don't mention the IMG' group, let me also deal with this contribution from RD232: "Well if it makes you happy, I'll address this point: "if it emerged that a Shadow Cabinet member had attended BNP meeetings, and he admitted it on the record in a left-wing British national newspaper..." - then that admission, in his own words, would be citable from the published source. This hypothetical example is irrelevant to the present case as it currently stands." Alas, it does not make me happy. Why. Because it doesn't in fact address it all. The hypothetical example is identical to the present case, except that the newspaper is left-wing, the politician is a Tory and it is the BNP, not the IMG. RD232 has slipped in the phrase "in his own words" but this is immaterial. Very few politicians now admit things themselves. They are inaccessible to all but a chosen few safe and trusted lobby reporters, and employ spokespersons to do it for them, as did Mr Ainsworth. If the fact that the information originates from an un-named spokesperson disqualifies it from use, then about 80% of the published statements on or about politicians would have to be discounted, here and elsewhere. Does he not think that an attempt to falsify his spokesperson's words in a major national newspaper would have resulted in a swift denial and demand for an apology? This would surely be a reliable test. This is why newspaper stories are generally accepted as verification, because of the fact that these stories are a) checked and legalled by the papers and b) subject to the libel laws and the PCC in England, and to public rebuttal in all jurisdictions. There has been neither a denial nor a demand for an apology, because the quotation and attribution are both accurate. Again, we have an amazing ultra-fastidiousness at work, an ultra-fastidiousness which doesn't apply elsewhere on Wikipedia, and which didn't prevent the unverified claim of 'candidate membership' to stand unchallenged for several years. Now that we finally have accurate information, there is resolute and pernickety opposition to its being included. Bizarre. I remain unable to see why the brief statement I suggest cannot be inserted in the entry. It's also at least as significant as Mr Ainsworth's presidency of a union branch. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to point out that in the published article [4] it merely says "spokesman"; it isn't at all clear who this is a spokesman for (I had rather assumed IMG, but you imply above it's Ainsworth). And as pointed out repeatedly, reported denial + implication isn't enough. If the article actually explicitly said "Ainsworth was a candidate member, and attended meetings", that would be different. It might still not be sufficient given the denial, but at least there'd been an argument which we could constructively ask others about (eg via WP:RFC). Rd232 ^talk 09:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think there's a difference in notability between heading the union at Jaguar and attending a couple of IMG meetings. If you consider WP:UNDUE then such a minor event would be quite out of balance. I don't understand why attending a couple of IMG meetings would have in any way shifted the political views of someone who was not moving left at the time. --Duncan (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea this was a spokesperson for the IMG is just obtuse. Apart from the facts that the IMG ceased to exist many years ago, and that secretive Bolshevik vanguard party organisations don't have spokespersons who discuss their membership or recruitment or meetings with the press, it's perfectly clear from all my earlier contributions to this discussion that the spokesperson is Mr Ainsworth's official spokesperson in his capacity as Defence Secretary(Eg my contribution on 22nd July at 12.33 "The undisputed source for Mr Ainsworth's association with the IMG is now Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson, who confirms that he attended meetings of the organisation"). I have all along suspected that my opponents in this matter weren't reading what I was saying, and it is now quite obvious that this is the case. They still don't seem aware that I don't wish to repeat the claim that Mr Ainsworth was a "candidate memebr" of the IMG,though I have lost count of the number of times I have said this. I simply wish to state that the attended IMG meetings, and won't elaborate. I don't consider mention of the union branch chairmanship 'undue'. I just think that it is less significant than attendance at meetings of a clandestine revolutionary organisation. Duncan may think these meetings affected Mr Ainworth's views, or that they didn't. i have no idea if he was'moving left' at the time, or moving north, either. I have never made ay suggestions about this unknowable thing, preferring to stick to the knowable and known. I may think his attendance at generally closed meetings of a generally closed organisation( see Duncan's explanation of the rules governing access to IMG meetings above)are indicative of Mr Ainsworth's views at the time, and the development of his politics subsequently. Others may think they are not. It doesn't matter. The fact is significant precisely because it helps readers to independently form their ideas of what sort of politician Mr Ainsworth is, on the basis of the known and undisputed facts about him. Some may think it doesn't matter. Some may think it does. All will have the maximum amount of verifiable information. Likewise, the fact that he refuses to discuss the matter any further is significant. In the absence of anyone else inserting the referenced facts, that he attended meetings of the IMG and that he won't discuss it, I propose to do so a fortnight from today (26th July 2009). I would much rather somebody else did it, for the reasons stated, but it should clearly be there and if nobody else will insert it, then I will . There is ,as is clearly demonstrated by the above, no good reason for excluding it. I'd be delighted if anyone else were to get involved. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, so long as there is not consensus for you to introduce that material and while other editors consider it not to be of encyclopedic value, you are not to do that. Wikipedia's policy is that consensus must be won on the Talk pages before disputed material is added. The IMG was not clandestine: it was a legal organisation but, like my chess club, its meetings are for members. --Duncan (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI Clockback has now requested a Third opinion. Pointillist (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is Duncan to say "You are not to do that" in this peremptory fashion? Why should his obduracy prevent the insertion of a verified fact in the entry? I have striven for days on end to achieve consensus with two wholly unresponsive opponents, who have not moved an eighth of an inch, have not responded to my points of argument, have not challenged my logic and have not questioned or undermined my facts. One of them has clearly demonstrated above that he cannot even be bothered to read my arguments. If those who oppose this entry are not prepared to debate (they ceaselessly either misunderstand or misrepresent the nature of the entry I propose to make, repeatedly suggesting that I wish to restore the unproven allegation that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member' of the IMG when I have repeatedly stated that I do not wish to do this. This is hardly surprising, if they are not reading what I am saying). This is why I have sought outside intervention, as I said I would do. By the way, the word 'clandestine' is not synonymous with illegality in any dictionary known to me. To my personal knowledge, the IMG in the 1970s used code-names in internal documents to disguise the identities of its members. The chess club comparison is, however, very funny indeed, and I am grateful to Duncan for brightening an otherwise gloomy Monday morning. Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue might have been clarified sooner if (a) you'd been less wordy, expending far too much time and energy on breaching the Wikipedia policy Assume Good Faith (b) more helpful in providing links to the sources when they were clearly needed or even asked for (regardless that they had been mentioned earlier in a lengthy discussion) (c) Hitchen's blog didn't (pathetically) fail to work in Firefox (d) the significance of the blog (labelled "supplementary questions" not properly explained. Also, failure to agree with you does not constitute unwillingness to debate. PS Duncan is merely stating WP:BLP policy - this is not his obduracy, it is what is sometimes called "BLP caution", i.e. disputed facts only added after editor agreement (WP:CONSENSUS), not before. Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, I am glad to have brightened your morning. As an experienced Wikipedia editor my role includes guiding other editors on what its policies allow. You proposed to do something which, given the current state of the consensus on this page, you are not to do. Rd232 makes a good point about Assume Good Faith: rather than find new references which are line with our policies, you are accusing us of bias. It would be defaulting with the community's policy of helping newer editors avoid mistakes of we were to be silent and allow you to continue uncorrected. If we were unresponsive, we would not be responding: we are. Certainly I understand that you are currently proposing adding a statement that Ainsworth attended a couple of IMG meetings in 1982, using your article (which cites an unnamed spoksperson) as a reference. My view is that is not notable, it would be out of line with the balance of the article, it is not supported by a primary reference, and so on. One final point: A clandestine organisation is one which is secret in order to carry out illicit acitivies. The IMG was a legal organisation, with public periodicals, with named spokespeople (including Tariq Ali) and which held both public meetings in addition to members' meetings. Members were obliged to sell its press and thus every member was publicly identified, as least to the activists and police who followed their locality. The organisation was closely observed by the police and there was no suggestion that the organisation had engaged in any illicit activity. The use of pen-names primarily protects members from employers' black-listing, and that policy was continued by the IMG's successor, the International Socialist Group, which was a registered political party: hardly clandestine! --Duncan (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request (Dispute over inclusion of two verified facts about Mr Ainsworth):

In this situation it is not conventional to provide an opinion following the WP:3O process as more than 2 editors have made significant contributions to the discussion. My apologies. Please check WP:DR for alternatives. However, speaking as an uninvolved editor, in this case a request on WP:BLP/N seems to fit the bill nicely as you will get a fairly quick response and I note that it has already been suggested during the discussion above.—Ash (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ash. --Duncan (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted it to WP:BLP/N. --Duncan (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, saying I was "wordy" is, I suppose, one way of admitting you didn't read what I was saying. I was responding to the arguments of my opponents with facts and logic, and in my view a good deal of patience. I did so at length because I repeatedly felt that they were not getting my point, and that I should therefore slice my logic more thinly to make it clearer. I'm sorry if any of them finds reading prose a strain. Perhaps, in that case, best find another interest apart from editing an encyclopaedia. As for 'assuming good faith', I think I am now entitled to say, as I have refrained from doing until now, that I haven't noticed much assumption of good faith on my part by my opponents, who have behaved from the start as if any fact I adduced was not to be trusted, because it came from me. I don't much care, being so used to this sort of thing that I barely notice it and am less disturbed by it than I perhaps ought to be. But I feel that will be obvious to any unbiased third party who reads this discussion. I am sorry Duncan's computer doesn't work properly, but this is outside my ability to fix. I am not sure quite where the pathos lies. I've managed to read that blog on a two-mile-an-hour dial-up link from Lahore, and via a state-censored computer in Burma, with a bit of ingenuity. I am told by Duncan of my intended addition that :"My view is that is not notable". Yes, that is his view, but on what is it based apart from his leftist political allegiance (which he doesn't trouble to conceal). This is as potent an argument as "because I say so". he then says that:"It would be out of line with the balance of the article", a statement whose meaning is not clear to me, and which may not actually be in English. What is this 'balance'? Who measures and determines it? Surely a fact's worthiness for inclusion is based upon its objective truth and its significance in relation to the subject, in which case it clearly belongs there. He then says :" it is not supported by a primary reference." But it is, unless, once again, he is assuming bad faith and dishonesty on my part. I have provided that reference, a quotation from Mr Ainwsworth's official spokesperson printed in a national newspaper and unchallenged since its publication. I have explained the convention under which journalists do not name government spokespersons, and offered to share that name with Duncan and RD232 on the same terms, should they feel it helps. I repeat the offer. I can be contacted via the switchboard of the Mail on Sunday. In his Humpty Dumpty way, Duncan then wags his finger at me to say :"One final point: A clandestine organisation is one which is secret in order to carry out illicit activities." Says who? Not, for example, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Not that dictionaries are or can be, definitive. They differ considerably. But Duncan writes as if the definition of the word that he personally gives (not even troubling to offer an authority for this) is in some way the only one, the right one, and so over-rides mine. I said 'clandestine' to mean secretive and anxious to avoid the limelight. I made no allegation of illegality. So why am I being told I did? Once again, who's assuming bad faith here? This is typical of Duncan's style of unresponsive non-argument. What he says is true and right, what other people say doesn't matter, or can be altered to suit him. And he has the nerve to lecture me on assuming good faith. RD232 says "failure to agree with you does not constitute unwillingness to debate". Nor did I ever say it was. But failure to read my arguments, clearly exposed, does, and so does repeated misrepresentation (to yourselves, since I know the position clearly) of what I am asking for, though I am glad to see that this at least is now at an end and my opponents understand and acknowledge what it is I have been asking for from the start. So, in my view, does a total unwillingness to offer even a hint of a willingness to compromise. RD232 and Duncan would both be pretty sore, much more sore than I am, I suspect, if anyone treated them the way they've treated me. But here they happen to be in the majority, and think they may do as they wish. Well, it's all a good argument in favour of Conservapedia, if nothing else. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you can't (at present) get your own way on Wikipedia is not an argument in favour of Conservapedia. Unlike in journalism, There is no deadline, and bringing in others (as is now happening at WP:BLPN) ensures that 2 out of 3 editors isn't a small-sample bias problem. Mmkay? Also, instead of again encouraging violation of WP:OR (phoning the MoS switchboard!), you might do something constructive by getting the MoS to sort out your blog so it works in Firefox. PS responding to a criticism of being "wordy" with a 781 word comment is somewhat amusing. Rd232 ^talk 10:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, it's off-topic to touch on what Clockback does at work or does not do with his blog. Let's keep it sweet. He may not be able to influence what his paper does, or care to. --Duncan (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Edited Duncan (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Anyway, Conservapedia's stated policy seems at least as restrictive as ours in this respect - see point 6 here. Pointillist (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, I can hear your frustration but there's no solution for you here unless you take the time to read our policies and debate in their contexts. Truth isn't enough: we are looking for things which not only true but are supported by references, are not out of balance with the article as a whole... which meet our policies. I feel that we're now at the point where no new references are coming into our discussion so, I can't think of much to add. The discussion on the meaning of clandestine is interesting, but not relevant. I didn't get your point about my computer not working, but thanks for the offer of help anyhow. --Duncan (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the policies. Verifiable facts can and should be included. Duncan, whose grasp of the facts in this case is such that he appears to think my story was published in 'The News of the World', at least that's what he says at WP:BLP/N, reiterates his incomprehensible rule about how truth and verification are not the point, which is that the fact I wish to include is somehow 'out of balance' with the article as a whole. As I say, I don't know what this means, and without further and better particulars will continue to translate it into English as "I don't want it there". I didn't begin the discussion of the meaning of'clandestine'. It was RD232's computer that doesn't seem to work. Sorry for mixing you two up. Can't think how I did that. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, I made an honest mistake, corrected it and thanked you for the pointing out the error. By debating my opinions in terms of who I am, rather than the opinion itself, could be seen as an ad hominem construction by others. You might also want to read WP:NPA. --Duncan (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As I don't know who Duncan is, I can't really debate his opinions in terms of who he is. In fact I'm not sure how one can make an 'ad hominem' attack upon a pseudonym. I know only his opinions, and that he doesn't necessarily pay very close attention to what I say, or to the facts in the case ( to confuse the 'Mail on Sunday' and the 'News of the World' seems to me to be a major error of fact, even if it is an honest error, whatever that means, especially in one so pernickety about what is and isn't factual, and about the meanings of words. It's and indicative of my complaint that my opponents in this matter haven't been paying attention to my arguments, or taking into account the facts I've placed before them. This, I suspect, is because they're not interested in them. Why not? I can only guess. I do think, by his own account, that I can reasonably assume Duncan is a man of the left and that he plays chess. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Who I am does not matter: don't go there. I suggest you read WP:OUTING. In case you have not, perhaps also glance at WP:CONFLICT. --Duncan (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece, and must leave it at that for now until my opponents actually start engaging with me instead of ignoring my facts, ignoring my arguments, hectoring me and ordering me about. Which is odd, when it is they who have a) removed material against my objections and b) refuse to insert material at my suggestion. I haven't touched the article. And if those who lecture me about Wikipedia rules (which like all other rules look different, depending on where and who you are) would examine their own conduct - especially their consistent failure to obey the injunction to assume good faith on my part, at any time in this discussion, they might be less keen to lecture me on mine. It is this fundamental unwillingnesss to trust what I say or to treat my published work as worthy of trust that lies at the base of their arguments, and what I regard as their wilful misunderstanding ( beautifully evidenced by the fact that after a week of debating with me and supposedly examining published matter from my newspaper, they didn't know what I was asking for and one of them didn't even know who I work for). I'm off now till August 9th, in the hope that others can achieve a compromise by then. I really do hope so, and beg any others to help this happen. If not, I shall insert the item as set out and referenced above. By the way, I should point out to my fastidious opponents that only one fact (the school he attended) in the 'Early Life' section of Mr Ainsworth's biography is sourced or verified in any way. I do hope, to demonstrate their consistency, that they will be applying the same rigour to the rest of this section as they have to the bit about the IMG. As it stands, RD232 really ought to be removing it. If he does, I'll support him. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's touching that you're so concerned about the quality of Ainsworth's WP entry, though you might have tried finding new sources yourself before suggesting material be deleted. At your prompting I've added some sources (I had already added one, which covered more of the Early history than you say above). However WP:BLP means that damaging info needs to be sourced to a higher standard, and also needs to be sourced before it can be added. Rd232 ^talk 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have said I have made my point and hope others can sort this out before the 9th August, when I shall reluctantly but certainly insert the item unless a good argument has been produced for excluding it (which it so far hasn't been), or unless(my strong preference) RD232 and Duncan have themselves inserted the item as suggested, or amended in acceptable and sensible way. But I cannot leave Duncan's last message unanswered. I havew been repeatedly lectured on how I am somehow breaching all kind of Wikipedia rules. Maybe i have, maybe I haven't, but what about my opponents? I have looked carefully at the pages both on 'outing' and on 'conflict'. I see absolutely nothing to suggest that I am threatening to 'out' anybody , impossible in any case since I do not know who they are. But I don't and wouldn't want to if I did. the accusation is both baseless and unjust. Why cannot he ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part? Once again, I am wondering if he is reading what I say with any care. Similarly, I am baffled as to what the 'conflict of interest', which he implies, might be. Alone of the contributors here ( as is my right) I have made my involvement in this matter, and my interest in it (such as it is) perfectly clear, as advised to do by Wikipedia. Why cannot he then ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part? My opponents have not declared any interest( as is their right) and presumably have no interest to declare. But if they did, how would anyone know? Rather than raise this possibility, which I could easily have done, I have ASSUMED GOOD FAITH. My main purpose has from the start been to ensure that the entry is true and accurate (without my original initiative, it would still say that Mr Ainsworth had been a 'candidate member' of the IMG, a statement which cannot be verified and ought to have been replaced by an accurate and verifiable statement of the facts now clearly established and confirmed by Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson. Nobody has ever given me any credit for this because nobody has ASSUMED GOOD FAITH on my part) . What seems to me to have distinguished the responses of both Duncan and RD232 is an unwillingness to ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part. In fact, had they ASSUMED GOOD FAITH on my part, we wouild by now have the matter resolved. They write all the time as if I'm up to something, have motives etc. Another editor, by questioning that I am who I say I am (elsewhere), has now joined in this general refusal to ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part. Why should I pretend to be someone I'm not, when I go to such lengths to say who I am? If other editors would follow their own code, and ASSUME GOOD FAITH on my part, we would get a lot further, a lot more quickly. By the way, there exist several clear newspaper stories stating unequivocally and without a single inverted comma that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member' of the IMG. If the rigid, unmoving, mechanistic attitude of some editors were applied to these, they could be used as supporting verification for inserting such a statement in the article. This seems to me to be an argument against pettifogging rigidity, not an argument for inserting such a statement. Think on. Now I really am going away till the 9th. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"there exist several clear newspaper stories stating unequivocally and without a single inverted comma that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member' of the IMG." that being the case, why have you never bothered to point us to them? (I haven't been able to find them myself.) PS I have always assumed good faith re your desire to include this info in Ainsworth's entry. My comments about the "smear" related to the published article which, without evidence, linked Ainsworth with IMG's support for the IRA. Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I to have no peace? must I do it all for you? Google "Bob Ainsworth" and "Candidate member" and you come up with http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199283/political-cowards-true-heroes.html. Google fails to come up with another reference in the same paper(the Daily Mail is editorially separate from the Mail on Sunday) which I know to exist and currently cannot locate in any other way, though I should be able to do so in a couple of weeks if anyone cares. I have no idea what the source of their information is, but there has been no challenge to the statement from Mr Ainsworth, so far as I know, in the subsequent 17 days. I haven't bothered to point this out till now because (for about the nine millionth time of saying this) I am not, and never have been, arguing for the inclusion of the statement that Mr Ainsworth was a 'candidate member'of the IMG. My aim is different ( see above, passim, over and over and over again). I have to write at length ('wordily') because my opponents, being so convinced of my bad faith and wicked intentions, wilfully misunderstand almost everything I say and seem to require every step of my logic to be explained in tiny detail. This slows things down a bit. A discussion with people who accepted my good faith and didn't treat every word and comma (and inverted comma) that I write with aggressive scepticism would be a lot swifter and a lot less 'wordy. And so, being anxious to seek a compromise, I oblige. The logic of my earlier comment was this. On the same standards which are being advanced to exlude reference to my account of Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson's statement, the story saying Mr Ainsworth was a candidate member should be admitted as verification. It's my opponents' logic, not mine. It just demonstrates how absurd their attitude is. I have stated my view as to what the entry should say. Lots of times. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

These personal attacks are getting tiresome - repeating that your opponents have not assumed good faith doesn't make it true no matter how often you say it. Thank you though for providing one other reference - finally. (I guess the many previous requests finally got through.) Several problems with that though. First, it's a comment piece without a byline (as far as I can see). Second, it predates your own comment piece in the same paper by just 6 days. Coincidence, given that the story had received zero coverage previously? A stretch. Third, drawing on your own work, we can see what is meant by "candidate member", which is attending a couple of meetings at the request of a friend, which brings us back to WP:UNDUE. Finally, just out of curiosity, your Mail piece claimed there were previous "stories". What were they? Or did you get the story from Wikipedia, and then choose to follow it up from there? Rd232 ^talk 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no source cited in the article. Seriously, an unreferenced and unsigned debate piece is not enough, and it's doesn't support the claim you want to add, that he attended meetings. --Duncan (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it doesn't. I didn't say it did. My article does however provie a verified source. Please do read what I write. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You've avoided this question several times before, so I'll ask again: "your Mail piece claimed there were previous 'stories'. What were they? Or did you get the story from Wikipedia, and then choose to follow it up from there?" Also, assuming one of them was the unsigned Mail comment piece a week earlier, [5], are you saying that piece was completely independent of yours? (Do you know, by the way, who the author is?) Rd232 ^talk 09:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

I find it useful to look at the sources in cases like this. I think this is a fair round-up of the sources claimed above (if not, please tell me) with the relevant bits quoted:

• Political cowards and true heroes (Mail): Mr Ainsworth was ironically once a candidate member of the International Marxist Group - which supported the IRA against British Army 'imperialism'.
• How long until we abort the old too? (Hitchens Comment): "I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student. [...] The source said: ‘A friend who was in the organisation tried to persuade him to join.’ [...] I was sent a written statement asserting that Mr Ainsworth’s brush with the IMG ‘reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say’."
• The Defence Secretary and the International Marxist Group (Hitchens Blog): "When I sought more information about Mr Ainsworth's alleged links with the IMG, I talked to a 'spokesperson' who, after an unsatisfactory phone conversation, sent me a written statement. This is what it said: "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say."
• Bring them home now (Morning Star): "Bob Ainsworth, who was previously tied in with the International Marxist Group"

The Morning Star piece is only reporting what other newspapers have said. The Mail piece is clear, but it's only one sentence. My feeling is that a throwaway one-line comment is probably not sufficient for a claim like this. The Hitchens pieces are better sources as they deal with this in detail, although it's difficult to pin down exactly what he means - who does the spokesman represent, what is the article he's talking about, is the source he talks about that of the article or his own source? I guess the spokesman is for the IMG.

There are two questions here. First, are the sources reliable and clear enough to support this case? My opinion is that the statement from the IMG spokesman (assuming it is) would probably be reliable enough for claiming that Ainsworth attended a couple of IMG meetings, but this is a borderline case. Second, would including this information make the article biased by putting undue weight on relatively minor incidents. My opinion is that this is very minor: he didn't join the group or express agreement with their views. And it hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media - a Google News search shows a very small number of articles.

In conclusion, I don't think this is notable enough for inclusion, although this is a borderline case. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with that general assessment. Note though that in the long and fairly circular discussion above, Hitchens said the spokesperson was for Ainsworth (I had the same impression it was IMG). I'm not sure what the source status of Hitchen's onwiki comments are (especially as I'm not aware of any external verification by Hitchens that Clockback is really his account); but it probably doesn't make much difference anyway whose spokesperson it is. It seems, eventually, to come down to this: from Hitchens blog and article it seems that Ainsworth was dragged to a couple of meetings by a friend and disagreed with everything they said. Is that significant enough for his encyclopedia entry? In itself I think not. Nor has there been enough media coverage to make the reporting of the issue in 2009 a significant enough media event. It's still WP:UNDUE to include it I think. Rd232 ^talk 09:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Summing Up

I am now preparing, as promised, to add to the entry on Bob Ainsworth MP. In doing so, I will try to sum up the argument so far in its essentials. But first, to avoid all misunderstanding, these are the words ( and attached references) which I intend to add on Sunday 9th August unless a good reason is supplied for me to refrain, or unless someone else does it. I propose to place them in the ‘Early Life’ segment, after the sentence ending ‘Branch President’. I would, as I have repeatedly said, much prefer it if another editor could place it there. Arguments for doing so follow the suggested entry.

“In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this. ”

1. What is the dispute not about? It is emphatically not about whether Wikipedia can say that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’ of the International Marxist Group (IMG). The traceable source of this claim is a Wikipedia editor who emphatically declares that he will remain pseudonymous, and who has declined to reply to separate questions from editor Philip Cross and from me, asking him to verify the information he placed on Wikipedia some years ago. 2. What is it about? It is about whether the brief statement above can be included in the entry. First, is it factually correct? Yes. Mr Ainsworth’s own spokesperson at the Ministry of Defence has said on the record that Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple of meetings’of the IMG. The references ( two from my ‘Mail on Sunday’ column, one from my blog, one from a ‘Daily Mail’ article by the historian Andrew Roberts which says Mr Ainsworth ‘flirted’ with the IMG) have been chosen because they do not refer to the so far unverified and possibly circular claim that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’. The ‘Daily Mail’ (editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) and the ‘Morning Star’ (even more editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) have published stories making this statement. Let us assume that they have their own sources, apart from Wikipedia, for saying so. But they do not cite them. Until they do, this doesn’t seem to me to count for verification. 3.Is the inclusion of the information in Mr Ainsworth’s entry undue? Those who say that it is argue that it is a) trivial, b) a long time ago and c) not indicative of anything about Mr Ainsworth’s current politics. I ask them to apply the following simple test, which will recur in this argument. Would they say the same if we were discussing information (confirmed on the record and published in two newspapers of the Left) that a member of a Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet had attended National Front meetings in the same period? If so, then they can continue to insist that the matter is undue. If not, not. We are urged by Wikpedia rules to adopt a ‘Neutral Point of View’. I personally think this impossible, as we are all inevitably influenced in our selection and appreciation of facts by our own opinions, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. But we can choose to make a deliberate effort to set this influence aside as far as we may. I think on this occasion those who have opposed the inclusion of the information are the ones who need to make this effort of generosity and open-mindedness. I also think some editors may, unconsciously, have allowed themselves to be influenced by the fact that the information appeared in newspapers they do not like under bylines they do not like, in a fashion they do not like. The mirror image of this would have happened had it concerned a senior Tory who had associated with the NF. It would not have made the information any less valid or worthy of inclusion. They need to show how the nature of the source is relevant. The proposed addition contains no expression of opinion on the significance of Mr Ainsworth’s contact with the IMG. Those who check the references will find the words of Mr Ainsworth’s spokesperson, belittling the significance of the contact, cited in full. They will also find the list of the questions submitted to Mr Ainsworth about the matter, to which he chose not to reply. Readers may choose (as several editors do) to believe it does not matter if Mr Ainsworth attended these meetings. However, Duncan’s comment (on the discussion page on 22nd July, 23.56) that “What I do know is that the reply of Ainsworth's people is accurate. You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate” is helpful to those who wonder if it matters. It is not, repeat not, verification that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’, but it seems to me (especially as it comes from an opponent of inclusion) to support the view that IMG meetings were not, like those of conventional political parties, open to all comers, and that attendance at them is considerably more significant than past attendance at Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat meetings. I should add that Mr Ainsworth was a mature adult at the time. The IMG was not a current within the Labour Party, as one contributor inaccurately assumes. It was a ‘Democratic Centralist’ disciplined organisation with its own rules, programme, leadership and structure, which from time to time encouraged its members to work within the Labour Party, and from time to time maintained a wholly separate existence. Readers may equally choose to believe that it matters a little, or a lot. That is what factual information allows us to do. Not displaying it at all, when it exists, involves a political judgment that editors of Wikipedia are entitled to decide on behalf of others what established facts might or might not be important to them. Mr Ainsworth is by profession a full-time politician. He is a Member of Parliament, whose vote can alter the fate of Bills, make and unmake the law of the land, send soldiers into battle, influence the spending (or non-spending) of billions of pounds. He has been an important mid-level member of the Blair and Brown governments for some years. He is currently a Cabinet member who can influence policy at a far higher level than most of us can dream of. He is a Privy Counsellor. He is Secretary of State for Defence, a responsible and contentious office. If he were a dentist, a road engineer or a space scientist, perhaps his political actions and associations in his late twenties or early thirties would be of no interest or significance. As it is, I think it would be very hard to maintain that they are of no interest at all. Nor can I see how the reference could be any briefer or plainer than I have made it above.

The question of reliability of sources has been raised. Here is what Wikipedia itself says about this : “Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made.” Opponents of inclusion on these grounds need to state clearly and precisely what makes the sources quoted, and their authors, unreliable. It is no good just saying you don’t like them.

The discussions, on the Ainsworth entry and in BLP/N, have attracted several different points of view. That is why I am placing this suggested text in both those places. They have been discussed elsewhere on the web, though not by me, with one Wikipedia editor suggesting that my interest in this is obsessive. I think a concern to ensure that accurate facts are displayed on one of the most important research resources in the world is quite reasonable, myself. If we are not allowed to take such things seriously without being called names, what kind of society do we live in? Neither side can claim overwhelming support, and some editors with borderline views may revise their position if they read my second reference to the subject. I submit that in any enterprise devoted to knowledge, the presumption must surely be in favour of the inclusion of any fact, rather than in favour of its exclusion.

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of this dispute having noticed an edit with BA's name as a last edit at the BLP board. I'm of the opinion that now the subject is the holder of one of the traditional middle-ranking cabinet posts, the article needs expansion and in that context it will be worth a very brief mention. Considering that with the exception of the two god-bothering Prime Ministers, virtually all the New Labour dignitaries had Marxist backgrounds, I hardly think that it is a BLP risk to mention that a cabinet minister attended meetings of a group and decided not to join, provided that is clear that he rapidly lost all interest in them. Having material on the political evolution of a politician seems entirely appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Political evolution? He went to a couple of marxist meetings, didn't like it and went on to become a socialist labour mp which he still is today. That's it! It is not really evolution is it? I would be more happy to include a comment about it if the article was expanded, as it is at the moment, adding it to what is not much more than a stub would give the comment undue weight. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Clockback, you have mistaken in your understanding of our polces. Please re-read the discussion above. Until you win consensus, you may not add in material whose inclusion is disputed. Peter, there are no references to suggest that Ainsworth was there to evaluate joining. Clockback's form of words about elaboratoin is innunedo. The whole thing os not notable and effects the balance of the article. Ainsworth was not evolving politically at the time --Duncan (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should be there. This is ludicrous. Virtually everybody that follows politics in the UK now, knows that he attended Marxist meetings. It's a relevant fact, and yet it isn't allowed to be put on his wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.132.134 (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If Clockback needs consensus, allow me to join his side. Bob Ainsworth's own spokesman says he attended the meetings. The source we should link to is the article on the Mail on Sunday website. cagliost (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Expenses.

This is misleading and untrue and should be removed or rewritten to more reflect the reality of what was actually voted on, the vote was not in reference to expenses at all.

Ainsworth was one of the 98 MPs who in 2007 had voted to keep MPs' expense details exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.[9] (Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

The vote was actually on ..exempting the house from the freedom of information act, which would of had the effect of keeping expense details private. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Early life section

In this pretty well totally uncontentious 4 lines of text there are to support this info..four citations and 3 citation required tags. I removed them and they have been replaced, as it looks pretty well cited to me and there is nothing in the four lines that is disputed in any way, is there? Please explain what the issue is. Thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

The issue is simply that there is information there which is not attributable to the citations. It's important not to mislead readers about what is cited and what isn't, and for editors it's a signal that there's an issue. Rd232 ^talk 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we getting a bit carried away here? What exactly is the disputed material? We are not required to cite every single word, for example..if it says he went to college from 1988 to 1990 then it is not a desperate comment is it? If dates are contentious then look for cites or remove the dates, I would like to clear this up with you. What exactually is disputed or uncited, start with one comment, the first cite required tag,

here it is...

(where he worked from 1971)[citation needed]

is the date in Q, or the fact that he worked there? It is totally irrelevent. Lets just say he worked there...in the seventies, for a while.... it is not contensious or disputed at all...so why the tags? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

The year is unsourced. It would also be unsourced if you changed it to "seventies". And the issue is not whether the material is "disputed", it's whether the cites back them up. We should not mislead readers into thinking the cites back up uncited material. If you'd rather remove it well that's a valid opinion, but I'd rather leave it and hope it acts as a signal so that a source will turn up. Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, put back the citation required and I will search for a citation to support it. Regards (Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Picture.

Has anyone got a pic? Or can anyone from his homeland get one? (Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

MSF

It is stated that Mr Ainsworth was active in the MSF union. This is an anachronism. At the time stated, this union did not exist, as it would not be created until 1988 by a merger between the ASTMS and TASS. Which of the two (very different) organisations did Mr Ainsworth belong to? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is covered by "many union capacities" , the article needs expanding, if you have a citation WP:BE BOLD and put it in, apart from the issue we are discussing seperate. Regards Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, is quite correct. That is why "eventually in the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union" was inserted to cover the lack of information without introducing false information. A.P. Cross (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should Cabinet Minister’s past attendance at Marxist meetings be included in his biography?

Should Cabinet Minister’s past attendance at Marxist meetings be included in his biography? Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The source for this is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column (as reposted on his blog - [6] - requires Internet Explorer) which quotes Ainsworth's spokesperson as saying "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." I consider that WP:UNDUE to include. Rd232 talk 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note this has been discussed extensively by a couple of people above (section "Bob Ainsworth and the IMG" and they + some others at WP:BLPN#Bob Ainsworth. It's a lot of background but may be worth skimming. Rd232 ^talk 10:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, it is undue weight to insert what most would consider a negligable pinpoint in his life story.Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps he is a marxist, after all he went to two meetings a quarter of a centuary ago.. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

• As stated on my one earlier post to this page, I think it is relevant to this politician's political development that he attended the meetings and was not attracted by what he saw. This is a contrast with very many New Labour ministers who actually went the whole hog and joined Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyite groupings in their youth. It therefore is relevant biography. As for the whole WP:UNDUE issue, the only reason that this appears a problem is that the biography is rather short for a senior politician. There is nothing at all on his published political views, for example, which for someone holding one of the second tier cabinet posts just below the three great offices of state is rather strange. Is he New Labour/Old Labour/Blairite/Brownite etc? I would expect some indication.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  If you made that exact point before, I'm sorry I missed it - it's a good one. The significance of attending a couple of meetings (of an organisation he disagreed with) is low. The significance of disagreeing with that organisation (before and after attending a couple of meetings) is higher - much more reasonable to include. It needs to be integrated properly with his political trajectory though - which is difficult when there is so little known. That's the only thing leaving me on the fence; in a half-decent bio I'd be happy to include that in this way. As it is, I'd like to see what others think. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of Peter cohen, it's just the same people again, one ofd them simply not taking the matter seriously at all, one giving a highly partial account of the controversy. Isn't the point of this that other editors join in? Newcomers to this discussion are advised to read the whole debate above, not the rather partial summary of the matter given by one contributor. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would request user clockback to stop referring to himself as peter hitchens without some kind of confirmation of his identity.Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I also dispute clockback's comment that I am not taking this seriously, I am taking it serious, do you think I would waste my time talking and resisting this edit if I wasn't serious? My comment, "Perhaps he is a marxist, after all he went to two meetings a quarter of a centuary ago" is a reference to my opinion that this comment that clockback wants to insert is undue weight.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

"giving a highly partial account" - is that directed at my remark above giving the key quote from Hitchens' blog? That would seem pretty bizarre. (But then so is making accusations like that, instead of providing whatever balancing information is apparently missing.) Rd232 ^talk 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, WP:RFCs run for 30 days, and it can take a while to get new people in (peter cohen isn't new either). WP:DEADLINE. Rd232 ^talk 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

collapse irrelevant distraction from RFC issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In answer to the above questions, if the cap fits, please do wear it. I have put this out for outside comment precisely because I am weary of opponents who will not argue reasonably or accept offers of compromise, but stand pat on their positions whatever happens. One opponent is utterly unwilling to shift an inch, despite having been refuted (in the correct sense of the word) over his initial objection that the information was not a verifiable fact. The crucial quotes, by the way,(and there are now two of them) appear on the blog but are in fact from my column published in the Mail on Sunday, which is reproduced each week on the blog, and most easily accessed on the web through the blog site. He lost that bit (so much so that he uses quotations from the article he once argued was not verification, in support of his case for excluding the information). Instead, he now clings to his own subjective view that, despite being true and verified, the matter is not important enough to include. The mere fact that I and several other contributors to this discussion wholly or partially disagree with him would seem to me to make the case for inclusion in some form, and suggest that we should now be arguing about how, rather than whether. This editor asserts that his objections are not politically motivated - but will interestingly not respond to requests to apply the same attitude to a comparable hypothetical case in which a Tory politician was in the same position. In the absence of a clear response to this repeated question, I am entitled to suspect that this is because, in such a case, he would be hot for inclusion. And I am also unable to see how I can get the argument any further with another editor who resorts to sarcastic heckling in response to careful, fact-based, patient and reasoned argument. By the way, what 'confirmation of my identity' would Mr Off2riorob accept, and how could I get it to him? I am not sure why it matters, or what reason he has to doubt it, but I am happy to help if I can. It seems to me that I am free to identify myself if I wish, and that there is no conceivable advantage to be gained by me in pretending to be someone I am not in this argument. On the contrary, it places me in an invidious position which I acknowledge, and which I could easily avoid were I to keep my identity a secret. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I've had enough of your ongoing personal attacks, failure to WP:AGF whilst shouting that your "opponents" aren't doing that, and generally displaying a battleground mentality. I've amended my first comment to the RFC; I'll take without verification your claim that the blog is a repost of your printed column, even though this would have been an important point in the earlier discussion on sourcing and it's the first I've heard of it. Also, you cannot "refute" someone who is merely weighing the available evidence and waiting for more; you've failed to notice that once I realised your blog doesn't work in Firefox, and I read it in Internet Explorer, I stopped arguing about the sourcing. Perhaps if you were less judgemental in assuming that I give a flying monkey's about the reputation of a New Labour defence minister I've never previously heard of, you'd be less inclined to make the WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT mistake. PS How is that as a professional journalist you can write thousands of words here without doing anything to shift my opinion on WP:UNDUE, and peter cohen comes along and manages to put me on the fence with his remark that it's notable that Ainsworth rejected those views? (I hadn't said anything because I've been waiting for others to comment; I didn't count on you deciding to disrupt the RFC with your impatient personal attacks. I'm starting to wonder if 9th August has some special significance for you - are you planning to publish something else on this?) Rd232 talk 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) There is a method of clarification, I am unsure exactly what that is, I think it is by email somehow, a comment in your article would probably suffice. I will ask an admin to let you know how to go about it. Until then I would request you to cease from refering to yourself as that person. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)) Clockback, we are not opponents we are wikipedian editors working towards the benefit of the encyclopedia, I have edited tory articles as well as labour and I hope I have managed to edit both in a fair wikipedian way, I have also edited and protected the articles of people I dislike, this was also a good way to learn how everything works here. I know it is hard sometimes. It is my personal opinion that Peter Hitchins has got better things to do that to spend a couple of weeks attempting to add one line to a wikipedian article, that if they are inserted. could likely get removed a bit further down the line. In regards to your name, if your are going to continue to use it, I would say it needs to be verified. If we all went around claiming to be noted people it would get a bit ridiculous wouldn't it. I have asked an admin for some kind of clarification over the issue. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)) Off2riorob - I think there are something like 42 people named 'Peter Hitchens' in the UK but that is irrelevant, as is your argument against 'Clockback' now. It has been argued elsewhere, and supported, that it doesn't really matter who 'Clockback' is, what matters is a suitable source for information to be inluded in WP and Clockback has provided more than one, published in MSM. As you persist in opposing Clockback at every turn, even resorting to this pettifogging it seems that you are an opponent and NOT working towards the benefit of an encyclopedia. Clockback seeks to include relevant, properly cited information about a politicians political history. Other politicians have such information in their WP entries. The information should be included. Mimi (yack) 18:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Well, hey ho. I promise I have done plenty of other things during the past two weeks. But I enjoy writing, and I enjoy arguing, so I take the occasional pleasant interlude to keep up my case here. I also gain useful experience in Wikipedia dispute procedures. But I am, as an author and journalist, aware that Wikipedia is now one of the most important sources in the world, and it seems quite reasonable to me to spend time ensuring that its descriptions are accurate and full. I also don't like giving something up until it's finished. On the question of whether I am who I say I am, why not just assume good faith (as my opponents ceaselessly tell me to do, but cannot find it in their hearts to do when dealing with me, perhaps because in fact they rightly assume that I am who I say I am)? I do find it quite funny being berated for voluntarily saying openly who I am, by people who use pseudonyms. What IS the problem? Why IS this bad? What does it matter to the argument? The only problem arising is the fact that I am referring to stories written by myself. The only person whose position is made awkward by that is me, as I admit. If I hadn't said who I was, nobody would know. Hence my desire for someone else to make the change. On the difficulty of persuading others to change their minds, I freely admit that the fault may lie with me, but most people experienced in debate will confirm that failure to persuade isn't always the fault of the one doing the persuading. My blog identifies, in red letters prominently displayed, the fact that certain items featured on it are in fact my MoS column, so there's no need to take my word for that. The word 'opponent' is not pejorative. My opponents on this matter are just that. They oppose my suggested change. But they really shouldn't get so cross about my dogged persistence, and would make more progress (and seem more like fellow strivers in a co-operative effort to improve the entry) if they read what I wrote with any care, which some of them have shown they don't (one thought I wrote for 'The News of the World', several thought I'd talked to a spokesperson for the secretive ( and defunct) IMG, now some can't spell my name, despite being strangely worried about my telling them what it is, and I can't count the number of times people assumed I wanted to say Mr Ainsworth had been a 'candidate member' of the IMG when I didn't and don't. Others equally plainly just hadn't read my arguments at all. This continues. For all this I gather I have now been reported for some sort of misbehaviour. Nor have my opponents paid any attention to, or even acknowledged my repeated offers to reach a compromise, and if they addressed the facts I adduce and the logic I deploy it would make a nice change. Generally they simply ignore them. If I'm wrong, explain why. Saying over and over again that "It's not significant" or "Mr Ainsworth's spokesman says it's not significant" doesn't help, since I have responded to these points, produced arguments as to why it's significant and explained that the spokesman's explanation is questionable, and undermined by the refusal to discuss the matter further. What strikes me is that, as soon as one reason for excluding the matter is dealt with, another one appears. This is why (apart from the highly significant refusal of my opponents to address the hypothetical Tory/NF parallel) I increasingly believe my opponents have political rather than encyclopaedic reasons for not wishing to see the matter included. And that is why I hope very much that others, not troubled by this, will become engaged. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC) It is not a matter of good faith to accept blindly that you are the notable person that you claim to be. If you want to continue to sign that you are him you need to verify that. I ask you again to stop signing as Peter Hitchins without verification. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)) I myself have experienced impersonation of WP subjects. Just saying, there's a reason to exercise caution. Rd232 talk 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Wow. I keep ignoring the NF analogy because I've already responded to it once before. Not responding to it every time proves what exactly? And constantly claiming your opponents are being unreasonable and ignoring facts and logic does not make it true, and is rude at best. Have you lost track of the rejection of your arguments in the extraordinarily lengthy discussion, or do you just choose to ignore them because you disagree? Finally, you do realise that the reason your comments are disruptive of this RFC is that they (and the inevitable replies) create swaths of text for potential commenters to wade through - swaths which are irrelevant to the issue. That is why I'm so annoyed - not only are you needlessly attacking other editors, but you're undermining this opportunity to make some progress. Finally finally, what exactly would it take for you to WP:AGF? Angelic intervention? Rd232 talk 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) In response to RD232, I both noticed and responded at the time to his non-responsive response to my NF analogy. He evaded the central question, as I believe he continues to do. He chose to insert an extra condition ( namely an on-the-record personal confirmation by the politician himself). This enabled him to avoid the substantive point, (would he oppose the inclusion of such information about a Tory politician of equivalent calibre?), and divert the discussion back to his then concern,the alleged non-verifiability of the facts about Mr Ainsworth's attendance at IMG meeetings. Can he, by the way, confirm that he now accepts that the information is verifiable? he appears to have done so by implication, but if he has said so, I must confess to having missed it. He is also the only one of the three principal opponents of inclusion to have responded at all to this point. All I seek to do is to rescue this entry from a small number of self-appointed guardians who are determined, for reasons they won't discuss, to keep relevant and notable information from being displayed there. This is a feature of many Wikipedia entries and can only be resolved by opening it to wider scrutiny. I find it fascinating that they should devote so much energy to trying to keep information out of the public domain. I should have though an encylopaedist would have the opposite desire. I absolutely decline to apologise for responding in careful, logical, factual detail to the arguments of my opponents. Absurdly, I'm accused of making personal attacks on people whose sex I don't even know. It's their arguments I'm attacking. I wish they would do the same in reply. ibnstead of moaning about whether I am who I say I am, misrepresenting my intentions, heckling me or imagining that their opinions are facts. As I've said before, if people don't like reading prose, perhaps editing encyclopaedias is not for them. I live in hope that sooner or later someone will actually read and take note of my arguments, instead of saying 'no' to anything I say under any circumstances. And the wider this discussion is, the sooner that can happen. I have no idea how I'm undermining an opportunity to make progress. I have repeatedly offered compromise, and been ignored. And I am the person who made the reference. And I have still not touched the article, though others ( who tell me there is no rush ) did so against my protests. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Not going to rehash old discussions, especially if you're going to mischaracterise my involvement in them. Waste of everyone's time. Rd232 talk 08:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To the person who has inserted the IMG matter into the entry, without logging in. Please don't do this. It does not help the argument, and my opponents will just remove it. I have said I will wait until all reasonable dispute procedures are exhausted before inserting the item, and I ask others to do the same. You can help much more by logging in and joining the discussion. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

new labour marxists

this insert, is weighty and pushes a pov... Like a number of his subsequent New Labour colleagues, in his early political career Ainsworth had a brief flirtation with Marxist politics and organisations.[5]

Here is the link that was added with the comment,Peter Hitchens from mail online [[7]]

I disliked having to use the Hitchens link as it is an ugly headline. However, very interestingly, it contains a reference to Ainsworth's own spokesperson, in 2009, actually going on the record to confirm that Ainsworth had attended a couple of meetings of the IMG in the early 80s. That to me constituted a green light to go ahead with referencing it in the article, but at the same time to also stress that the dalliance was short—hence the words “brief flirtation”. I believe that my comment was objective, neutral, respectful and within Wikipedia editing guidelines. Jprw (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I tend to support inclusion of this, he has been reported as a safe pair of hands with experience of the MoD, and there are more Google results for "Bob Ainsworth" + moustache [8] as for his name + either IMG or International Marxist Group [9].--Peter cohen (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I now support the temporary removal of this reference, on the grounds that it is too detailed for the article in its present short state.Jprw (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing all negative Ainsworth references

I became involved with this article almost by chance, after hearing about the protracted—to put it mildly—debate between a number of Wikipedia editors about Ainsworth's supposed Marxist past. I put forward my own compromise on this episode (by citing the words “brief flirtation” in the reference), which was also removed. I read the debate in more detail (there was so much of it was difficult to keep track) and saw this opinion from Off2riorob: “I would be more happy to include a comment about it [Ainsworth's past tentative Marxist affiliations] if the article was expanded, as it is at the moment, adding it to what is not much more than a stub would give the comment undue weight”. Fair enough. That seemed like an eminently reasonable comment, which justified the removal.

With a view to expanding the article, I began Googling Ainsworth and it soon became apparent that any editors, biographers, researchers would have a hard time finding any really worthwhile biographical/professional information about him. It really does appear that he is a just rather unremarkable figure (and I hope those last two words are not construed as being an ad hominen attack!). However, what information there is of note concerning Ainsworth can roughly be boiled down to a) the fact that he became Defence Secretary during a chaotic (some word say farcical) cabinet reshuffle, and b) his making the very significant public statement that he felt the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had not been given enough resources. This remark, which I believe was a brave and honourable thing for someone in his position to make, led to a former General Chief of Staff rounding on Ainsworth with a pretty severe attack.

Both a) and b) above are it would appear very significant events within the context of Ainsworth's personal career biography. To remove them from the article would in my opinion lead to the article becoming non-neutral—removing all negative coverage of Ainsworth must surely constitute a lack of neutrality. Thus I am disagreeing with Off2riorob on this one and am requesting that in the absence of reinstating all the references he removed, a compromise at least be reached. And if I come across any significant positive information concerning Ainsworth I will be more than glad to include it in his Wikipedia article—I am certainly not at all interested in creating some kind of “attack piece” (to use Off2riorob's words).Jprw (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

your dislike of the subject of this biography is almost tenable. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith! I can assure you that I have no antipathy towards this subject whatsoever. Ainsworth is basically a rather unremarkable and mildly controversial public figure (at the time of writing; who knows, he may cover himself in glory in the months and years ahead). Your approach, which leads to me to question your neutrality, seems to be to remove any reference to him that is negative, despite the fact that these references are the most noteworthy events in his biography. I repeat, it has absolutely nothing to do with liking or disliking him, but rather presenting the most salient facts about his career objectively. Jprw (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

right. Off2riorob (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet you went ahead and removed the entry regarding the fact that Ainsworth was third choice anyway. Or were you just being sarcastic? So much for constructive discussion.Jprw (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

was anyone else offered the job? Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

comments that are speculative and opinionated and fluffy

Its the cup half full or half empty story, If you like him you write the cup is at least half full and if you dislike him you say the cup is at least half empty, the same situation depending on your point of view can be written in two different ways, same comment, one with a positive reflection and the other with a negative reflection. Our job as editors of wiki is to attempt to put our opinions to one side and write that the cup is half full and half empty. Comments that are speculative, opinionated fluffy and floral are not very beneficial to the article... this for example...

His appointment formed part of a chatoic cabinet reshuffle by the Prime Minister, who "considered at least three other candidates before appointing Ainsworth".

is a bit opinionated and kind of coatracks thing that are not related to ashworth into his article, chatoic all reshuffles are by nature a bit chatoic and this is nothing to do with ashworth is it, also the speculation fron an opinionated editor claiming as fact that 3 others were considered is also just a put down on ainsworth, he got the job, that is the simple truth and the rest is speculation and worthless speculative negativity. this whole phrase should be removed.

this....

Ainsworth's appointment coincided with the most intense British wartime casualties being suffered since the Falklands War

Really? intense? compared to what? Where are the figures to support this claim? And as the comment states it was a coincidence which makes it not very relevent to ashworth. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot possibly see why you would want to question this. Coincidentally, the 200th British soldier died in Afghanistan today. Jprw (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And it is fully relevant to Ainsworth as it meant that he was suddenly being faced with a very difficult task. Jprw (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tidied it up, what is left seem to be fine. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"I have tidied it up, what is left seem to be fine." By whose standards? Yours? The fact that Ainsworth was plucked from relative obscurity to be given the job of Defence Secretary is easily the most remarkable aspect of his biography. So why shouldn't it be included? And it's not a case of liking or disliking him (as you imply above). It's a case of looking at the available material objectively and including what is most noteworthy. When it comes to Ainsworth, the majority of that does unfortunately tend to paint him in a negative light. I again question your neutrality. Jprw (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

All politicians face difficult tasks, 200 dead soldiers in a war is actually not many. Please don't coatrack brown reshuffle caotic on to this biography. I am not removing negative stuff from this bio, I am keeping anything of real value and removing any comments that are speculative, opinionated, coatracked, floral or fluffy Off2riorob (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was quite happy to leave in this negative comment as it is very relevent...former Chief of Defence Staff General Lord Guthrie to accuse Ainsworth of not understanding "leadership in war" Off2riorob (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ainsworth was not as you say "plucked from relative obscurity" he was in many positions previously, chief whip for example. Off2riorob (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"All politicians face difficult tasks, 200 dead soldiers in a war is actually not many".

Well that is a controversial thing to say to say the least. But the main point is that your original point above, i.e., "Really? intense? compared to what? Where are the figures to support this claim?" has been shown to be utterly redundant--the casualty figures in Afghanistan are widely documented, and these are easily the greatest losses being suffered by the British since the Falklands is widely documented. This relates to Ainsworth, since he was given the job as Defence Secretary as the fighting and rate of casualties reached its highest. Therefore my original entry, i.e., "Ainsworth's appointment coincided with the most intense British wartime casualties being suffered since the Falklands War" seems to be fully appropriate, and you don’t seem to have put forward any worthwhile arguments to support the removal. Please try to assume good faith and be more polite. Jprw (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you got the figures comparitively Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about a dead per day figure or dead per week or what? The most intense...what does it mean? And as you say it is coincidential.Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob - I see a tension between what you view as "real value" and "opinionated" etc. and others views. I think Jprw has a point and suggest that it might demonstrate good faith if you were to invite Clockback to share his view also. JMO. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 12:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, of course anyone is more than welcome to comment, the more the merrier. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Miamomimi, what exactly do you think Jprw has a point about? Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Jprw has a point when he states "it's not a case of liking or disliking [Ainsworth] ... It's a case of looking at the available material objectively and including what is most noteworthy. When it comes to Ainsworth, the majority of that does unfortunately tend to paint him in a negative light." which reminded me of a previous point I made on the Biography notice board: "To have a 'balanced' political history is the reposibility of the subject, not the reporter." although I do agree that from the available info one should not select or present facts that reflect any bias on the part of the editor. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable enough to comment on the Afghan war which is why I suggested actively soliciting editors with sufficient knowledge so as to deflect accusations of bias. As Clockback has tried long and hard to make changes, and has the knowledge required, then I thought it might be an act of good faith to invite his views. Twas just a suggestion. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 15:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I am sure clockback is paying attention to this talkpage and yes I am sure he has things to add, he is very welcome if he wants to either add anything to the article that is well cited or comment here, being bold is good, we have one additional well written, strong comment added by Jprw, which is great. What about if I go away and leave the article altogether and you guys go ahead and add your cited comments? Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That was not my intention. I agree with Clockback's suggestion below. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the IMG matter (roughly as I have already suggested it, and with the four references provided) might fit better in the 'Parliamentary Career' section than in the biography, alongside other critical references. It might run along the lines of "Soon after his appointment, Mr Ainsworth's official spokesman stated that he had attended meeetings of the International Marxist Group during the early 1980s, but insisted this had no significance". I stress that this is a suggested text, and invite comments and emendations with the intention of achieving a consensus. We might also consider including it in a brief 'controversy' section, since Mr Ainsworth is now attracting some controversy. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have learnt a lot about wikipedia by being bold, so go ahead, we have controversy sections on other bios, so .. why not? Take care of the living person thingie, and if you can cite it, be bold. I will not remove anything that is well cited and verifyable and not demeaning. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ths is a good guide helpful , I just saw, have a look, Wikipedia:ASF#A_simple_formulation Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Clockback that your suggested reference to Ainsworth’s involvement in the IMG is too long and that something along the lines of ‘brief flirtation’ would be better. I think that the IMG reference needs to be short/somewhere in the early career section/posted after the article has been expanded a little, otherwise the article might appear weighty. I think the last point is important as it seemed to be a consensus reached by a number of Wikipedia editors after much wrangling and gnashing of teeth))

But bedsides, this brief dalliance with Marxism, in an overall consideration of his political career, pales into insignificance compared to his being controversially thrust as a third choice candidate into the position of Defence Secretary at a time of crisis for the British Army in terms of the number of casualties being sustained and a lack of resources. This is simply not reflected at all in the Ainsworth article. I tried reflecting it as follows: "His appointment formed part of a chaotic cabinet reshuffle by the Prime Minister, who "considered at least three other candidates before appointing Ainsworth" but this was dismissed as "speculative opinion" by Off2riorob above, even though from my point of view it is easily the most significant event in Ainsworth’s biography. Perhaps we can reach a consensus that if a better reference can be found—which I suspect should not be difficult—that it can be re-included? I want to stress that this is again not meant to be an ad hominem slight against Ainsworth, but merely drawing attention to the fact that his appointment was the equivalent of throwing someone in at the deep end (and indeed he has had a very difficult time of it since his appointment). Actually it reflects worse on Brown and the farcical reshuffle.Jprw (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be bold and add whatever is well cited, please keep the wording simple and neutral, for example... brief dalliance, farcical reshuffle, etc, these terms are flowery and tabloid....and ask a general.. have you got enough helicopters or would you like more?.. how many will say they don't want anymore....none.Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the words I have used for the article have been brief flirtation and chaotic reshuffle which in the given contexts were fair Jprw (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to help...brief flirtation... the phrase is totally flowery and unclear and tabloid, we are here to write encyclopedia quality articles...so a brief flirtation is open and unexplained..again ..chaotic reshuffle is flowery too, as I said it's a reshuffle and the reshuffle as such is nothing to do with bob, comments about browns reshuffle really belong on brown article not here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually believe that "brief flirtation" is not sensationalist but the most accurate way of describing his relationship with the IMG -- if you can suggest an improvement I'd be glad to hear it. And the same goes for "chaotic" -- we could use something anodyne like "eventful" but would it be as accurate? And it is directly relevant to Ainsworth, since it led to his getting the position of Defence Secretary. Jprw (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"chaotic" reshuffle is unnecessary editorial. I've expanded the appointment focussing on the salient details. As to the IMG bit, it belongs chronologically, and it needs to be carefully worded (a) to respect exactly what the source tells us (b) to be neutral. I suggest adding, after the Jaguar Cars sentence: "During this time, as a spokesman noted in 2009, "he attended a couple of [International Marxist Group] meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

this..which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say... is very wrong as we can't really cite that.. the comment from his spokesperson should be closely addeered to..spell check... ad here,, adhered to, Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The description of there shuffle would certainly need referencing if used. (It shouldn't be difficult to find such a reference since there was a lot of commentary on the advance resignations, pre-election attacks on Brown by a resigning minister, the change of day from the Monday to the Friday. However, the question is whether this is relevant to Ainsworth adn the evidence will be hwo authorative the sources are that suggest his receiving this post was a last minute decision. If he was third choice, as claimed by someone previously, then this would need referencing and preferably to more than one publication. (If press reportign of reshuffles is anything like their reporting of the football transfer market, then the confident assertion of one paper is not enough to make a a reliable claim.)--Peter cohen (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"However, the question is whether this is relevant to Ainsworth". Yes, completely -- it was a major factor in his being appointed. Jprw (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Off2riorob here and disagree with the use of ‘brief flirtation’. Clockback's suggestion was far more accurate: "Soon after his appointment, Mr Ainsworth's official spokesman stated that he had attended meeetings of the International Marxist Group during the early 1980s, but insisted this had no significance" A flirtation suggests behaviour without any serious intent or consideration; to toy, to trifle. My understanding of the IMG can, in writing, be summed up by this commenter:

"No, we didn’t just let anyone in [the IMG] ... the candidate system operated for a purpose, which was to determine an applicant’s degree of political commitment and suitability for membership of a revolutionary organisation. To become a candidate member was in itself a conscious decision, and the term had specific meaning. To use the phrase we used at the time, candidate membership conferred ‘all of the duties but none of the rights’ enjoyed by full members. Yes, you had to sell the paper. Yes, you had to pay a fair chunk of your income in dues. And yes, you had to go to endless bloody meetings, even though you got only an indicative vote. Now, I wasn’t based in Coventry and do not recall meeting Ainsworth at the time. I have no idea of the extent of his involvement. But the insistence on the part of his office that he simply attended a couple of IMG meetings at the invitation of a mate does not ring true. That would have made him at best a close contact, and would not even have qualified him as a sympathiser."

It is precisely because we don't know the intent, depth or legacy of the relationship Ainsworth actually had with the IMG that we should be accurate and use neutral language. And the requirement of the IMG is not entirely commensurate with Ainsworths descriptive tone of attendance. I would oppose the use of 'brief flirtation' or any other loaded description of what may or may not be his 'firm views' in favour of Clockbacks neutral text.

I have no disagreement with Peter cohen's point. Mimi ^(yack) 21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Direct quote is better than interpretation on this sensitive subject. And WP talk page comments have zero status as sources, which your quote above seems to forget. Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So how about "During this time, as a spokesperson noted in 2009, 'he attended a couple of [International Marxist Group] meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say.'"[10] That uses the key part of the spokesperson's quote, as a direct quote which ensures it isn't messed with and/or overdebated unnecessarily. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the spokesperson didn't "note", the spokeperson 'defended when challenged and wouldn't elaborate further'. And the other text is accurate, not weasely and better written. And my quote doesn't "forget" anything and neither did I as I do not suggest using it in the article. Thank you. Mimi ^(yack) 08:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Note" is a fairly neutral verb that can be discussed. Perhaps "said" would be better, or merely "according to". "Defended when challenged and wouldn't elaborate further" is certainly not NPOV, it is Hitchens' POV, which would need to be explicitly attributed if we wanted to include it, and even that would not I think be NPOV. As for the quote, I know you didn't suggest using it in the article, but by raising it here as if it was a source of information which should affect how we edit the article, you're implying that this talk page has some kind of source status which it certainly does not. Rd232 ^talk 09:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not imply anything of the kind, please AGF. I took the time and trouble to explain my reasoning, clearly. It is not Hitchens POV it is the context of the source - he challenged and they defended and wouldn't elaborate further. Who is the friend, for example? Can they be contacted and confirm they invited Ainsworth? Was he unwilling? What pressure did they bring to bear on him to attend? All these questions are redundant when one understands how groups like the IMG operated, which Peter Hitchens clearly does. And Ainsworth will know that. But editors of Wiki may not. My choice of text to be included in the main article remains unchanged. Mimi ^(yack) 09:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we please get one thing straight? It is not 'neutral' to give special weight in the eventual wording to the questionable (and in my view laughable) insistence of his spokesperson that Mr Ainsworth attended meetings of a revolutionary group even though he didn't agree with 'anything' they had to say. If this amazing claim , that he trudged to (closed) revolutionary meetings, when he didn't agree with *anything* that was being said at them, (see below) is to be included, then so must the fact that he declined to answer reasonable further questions about his involvement. The IMG's views were easily ascertained from their famous star member and speaker, Tariq Ali, and from their publications, notably the publication 'Red Mole' (yes, really) and were well-known to Labour activists, all of whom were in those days familiar with Trotyskyist positions because there were already so many Trots in the Labour Party. Mr Ainsworth had no need to attend one of their conclaves to discover what their views were. If he didn't agree with anything they had to say, why on earth did he go at all? And why won't he discuss it? What's more, as I have said before, Labour's official policies at that time were remarkably close to those of the IMG (they're not all that far off now) , so why did he belong to Labour if he disagreed with what they said? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're free as a journalist to read what you want into Ainsworth's unwillingness to discuss the issue any further (not fanning the flames of a decades-old issue he doesn't want to talk about is an obvious point), or to call the spokesperson's comment "laughable", but qua WP editor it is WP:OR. Incidentally, everyone seems to ignore the "at the request of a colleague" part, but as WP editors we don't have latitude to pick and choose like that. That's what the spokesperson said, and there is no justification for editing it out. Rd232 ^talk 14:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just catching up after a holiday. Clockback , Tariq Ali, by that time, had not been a member of the IMG for some years. His views were not those of the IMG at that time. The comment above about candidate membership above is mistaken, and irrelevant. It's mistaken because many candidate members don't become members. So the hope is that they will function like members, but the reality is that many don't like it. It's also misleading because there's no suggestion that we should claim he was a candidate member. Ainsworth's spokesperson is quite accurate about his brief relationship with the IMG, and he was not an activist of the organisation. --Duncan (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback - your choice of indentation clearly suggests a response to my comment. I did NOT propose giving "special weight in the eventual wording to the questionable (and in my view laughable) insistence of his spokesperson that Mr Ainsworth attended meetings of a revolutionary group even though he didn't agree with 'anything' they had to say" In fact I suggested the text you provided! Rd232 - I did not "ignore the "at the request of a colleague" part". In fact I dealt with it in my comment above. It is tiresome to be attacked for the things I haven't done, if only people would actually read what I write. Touche Mr Hitchens? Duncan - I do not believe the comment above about candidate membership, namely mine, is mistaken at all. I did NOT say (here we go again) that ALL candidate members become full members. Where did I say that? And I did not suggest that we put in the article that he was a candidate member. My suggestion was clear. Opinions were invited on this issue and I've given mine. If only people would read it. I leave it to you gentlemen to settle between yourselves as I'm obviously being ignored (no change there then, Clockback). Mimi ^(yack) 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback's comment was probably more general than specifically directed at you (it's hard to interpret it that way, even if the indenting suggests it). Similarly Duncan's comment appears to be directed at Clockback, not you. As for my point: if you've previously addressed the "request of a colleague" part which AFAIK hasn't been previously discussed (least not recently), please let me know where, I must have missed it (we're none of us perfect). Of course if you'd prefer to disappear in a fit of pique, that's up to you. Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry for any confusion. I'll outdent a couple of spots. If the quotation aims to suggest what a candidate member is in the IMG/ISG tradition, then it's mistaken. A lot of candidate members are never seen again and it's just not the case (then or now) that they are as active as other members - there's a lot of variance. Mimi, I don't think we can assume that Hitchins knows better than we editors how the IMG operated, that it's meaningful. Personally, I have a much longer experience than him in that organisation's tradition, and I feel no special knowledge is needed to judge the merits of this issue. --Duncan (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that the depth of indentation had any purpose or significance, other than to distinguish what was written from what was immediately above it. I still don't see how it could, but perhaps someone might explain. So much Wikipedia knowledge is arcane and obscure, but I am willing to learn. So anyone reading any purpose or significance into it is misleading himself or herself and getting cross about nothing. Believe me, if I wish to attack what you say, you will know about it. My comment was on the ludicrousness of according his spokesperson's unverifiable ( and weird) gloss equal status with the checkable factual content of her statement. No more. No less. Anyone can view this statement, and my unanswered questions, by clicking on the references. I don't think the mention should touch on the question of 'candidate membership' which is unverifiable and which I thought was dead long ago. I think it should state as I originally suggested ( and in my view my version is as brief as possible) : "“In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this. [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] The alternative to the above ( if you wish to be neutral) would be to include both the spokesperson's claim that he went to at least two meetings of an organisation he didn't agree with, *and* his refusal to answer further questions. I'd be happy with that, but it would be long, long , long. Which I'm told is bad. Why not just stick to verifiable facts and let readers consult the references for details and comments. I have no idea when Tariq Ali left the IMG. Do we have a source for this information? And of course the 'Red Mole' had by that time become 'Socialist Challenge'. My point remians. The IMG was an established brand among the politically aware, third worldy, cultural, revolutionary, Who cares if a 'colleague' persuaded him to go? It's hardly likely that someone he'd never met before in his life persuaded him to go. The point is that he *didn't* say, in response to these invitations 'Actually, I'm awfully sorry but I don't agree with anything they say, so I won't come'. THis is what he would presumably have said perhaps more forcefully, if invited to a Mormon Tabernacle or an NF rally. He didn't say this at least twice. How did he not know that he disagreed with them before he went once? He was active in left-wing politics, for goodness sake. How, even more, did he not know this when he went the second time? Whyever was that? Do switch ion your senses of humour here. The gloss is comically absurd. I think we must reach a consensus soon, or move to the next stage, whatever that is. If I insert the item as planned, I am fairly sure that another editor will immediately remove it. We haven't managed to widen this discussion very much. Does the famous Wikipedia community really want to wait until there's an edit war before getting involved here? It looks like it to me. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict...I think indenting is not too complicated, we just try to add an indent to attempt to make the conversation as easy to see who said what, I don't think there is a set policy? It would be talk page manual of style if there was one. It is good if you are replying to a specific person that you say so, to make it clear. I like the first part of your comment Clockback, but instead of...but has declined to elaborate on this...I would prefer something like...when Ainsworth was asked for a comment his spokeperson said......bla bla ... Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Talk page, and on the indentation specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation. Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it a "fit of pique" to withdraw if one is being ignored? I thought, and I'm sure Clockback would agree, it was a reasonable response but I am happy to be corrected on the matter and return. Clockback - of course you could see how it could and, if I am cross with you, you will know about it. Believe me. Regarding the text at issue; I have given my opinion on the proposed edit and don't see what I can add except to repeat it. So I will happily, and with no pique whatsoever, withdraw to my coffee whilst you gentlemen continue the discussion over a glass of port? Good evening, gentlemen. Mimi ^(yack) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mi, your cool. I think that is not a bad idea from Clockback...to say that Ainsworth refused to comment...if we can cite that ... and then come in with the spokeperson comment. Long is less of a problem than saying or implying things at are unsupported by facts..or rather not facts as here verifiability is more relevant. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to think that when decisions are required and straw counts are done that more people should be there, but often at wikipedia it is a small handful of editors that decide, so here we are... Don't forget that the wiki is like a flowing river and this is a single snapshot that is sure to change and develop further downstream. A small comment would not need 4 citations, one or at the most two would cover it. 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

I've read through this entire fascinating discussion and it seems to me that the IMG information must be included. The article is now more than a stub, and Ainsworth is one of the holders of a major cabinet post (particularly important given that we are in the middle of an increasingly bloody war), so it is right that his politics be fully probed. The undisputed fact is that he attended (at least) two closed meetings of the IMG, while aged in his 30s. Given his age at the time, and political background, it is not reasonable to suggest that he had no idea what IMG's policies were; as clockback has stated, IMG's publications were widely available and policies well known among the politically aware. What is *not* fact is that Ainsworth was somehow corralled into attending by "a friend". Who is this "friend"? Will he verify that Ainsworth was unwilling to attend, and the manner in which he forced Ainsworth to go? Equally possible is that Ainsworth sought out an acquaintance who was an IMG member, and requested an invitation to attend a meeting. We cannot know either way, so it is best to leave out the entire "friend" saga, and simply state that "Ainsworth attended multiple closed meetings of the IMG in his 30s", period. As to the comments from his spokesperson, we should state that: "Asked in 2009 about these meetings, Ainsworth's spokesperson claimed on the record that Ainsworth disagreed with the IMG's policies, and refused to elaborate on the subject". All of these things are factually and verifiably true. Chrisp728 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mm. Welcome to Wikipedia; interesting first contribution. "What is *not* fact is that Ainsworth was somehow corralled into attending by "a friend". " There is no evidence for that assertion. The spokesperson said so, and there is no basis for discounting the claim, or for introducing unsourced claims about the nature of IMG or about what people are supposed to have known about it. That would be speculation and original research. Rd232 ^talk 22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break, fluffy part 2

I'm not suggesting we add to the article anything about the nature of IMG or what people are supposed to have known about it. My entire addition would be: "Ainsworth attended multiple closed meetings of the IMG in his 30s. Asked in 2009 about these meetings, Ainsworth's spokesperson claimed on the record that Ainsworth disagreed with the IMG's policies, and refused to elaborate on the subject". As for the issue of the "friend", you say that there is no basis for discounting the claim, but in fact there is no basis for accepting it. The spokesperson in question is Ainsworth's spokesperson, not Ainsworth's "friend"'s spokesperson. Until we have verifiable evidence as to the identity of the "friend", and the basis upon which the "friend" persuaded Ainsworth to attend multiple closed IMG meetings against his will, the entire saga should be omitted. Incidentally, Peter Hitchens appears to have asked Ainsworth's spokesperson for information about the "friend", and this has been denied. When Ainsworth feels ready to identify the "friend" in question, on the record, and his assertion can be verified, that will be the time to add the "friend" issue to his article. Not before.Chrisp728 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple it difficult as it is a very fluffy word. one is clear, two is two, a couple should be also two but is a bit fluffy and could mean a few, what is the meaning of multiple in this situation? The comment from the spokesperson is very relevant to the story, where did the comment first appear? Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, in link 11 just up from here on this page..you say this....

I can recall members of the International Marxist Group yelling ‘Victory to the IRA!’ on student demonstrations. So I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student.

Could you please explain where you saw these stories? Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback has repeatedly declined to clarify that issue. I don't see why he should start now, especially as it doesn't seem as relevant to the subject at hand now as it was earlier. Rd232 ^talk 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Multiple" means more than one. As with the "friend" issue, it is up to Mr Ainsworth to clarify the issue as to precisely how many IMG meetings he attended. He has already refused to answer Peter Hitchens on these counts: we do not know who his "friend" is, so it would be wrong to include the issue in the article; and we only know that he attended more than one meeting. The fact that he attended more than one is highly relevant; had he attended only one, he could get away with saying he was appalled by the policies of the group, and had nothing more to do with them. But the fact that he went back to more closed IMG meetings after the first one suggests that this was not the case. His spokesman has Mr Hitchens' contact details, so hopefully he will let us know preciesly how many meetings he attended. Until then, it is important to make clear that he attended more than one, for the reasons I outlined above.Chrisp728 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple is too vague (fluffy) a phrase to be used here. Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ainsworth doesn't have to clarify anything, and it is not our job to speculate...how do we know he attended more than one? because his spokesperson told us and what expression did the spokesperson use? he said a couple .. so we go with that unless you have a citation for more than that. Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically anything the spokesperson said is a go for entry, I would say most of what the spokesperson said should be added. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need "multiple". We can say "Ainsworth attended closed meetings of the IMG in his 30s." Here are a couple of published sources for the "candidate member" statement:

"Defence Secretary 'Is Just Not Up to the Job'"; Daily Mail (13 July 2009), p. 2: "In 1982 he became a 'candidate member' though never a full member of the International Marxist Group, a Trotskyist faction which later sought to infiltrate the Labour Party. In 1992 he made it to Parliament and was parachuted into the whips' office when Tony Blair won power in 1997."

Kelvin MacKenzie: "Dull Bob at MoD Is Indefensible", The Sun (16 July 2009), p. 11: "In the Eighties Ainsworth was a 'candidate member' of the international Marxist group, a Trotskyite organisation which tried to infiltrate the Labour Party." Lachrie (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The sun is worthless as a political citation and we already have the mail, I agree we don't need muntiple as it is so unexplained and leaving out numerical reference is also vague, again, all we have is the a couple comment from the spokesperson. Also closed is going to need explaining if you want to add that, Off2riorob (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus being neared on inclusion of IMG reference?

"In the early 1980s, Mr Ainsworth attended 'a couple' of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this" is Clockback's suggestion above. However, it looks a bit long and may be weighty, given the present length of the article. So, to solve this and in the interests of being as non-fluffy and as non-wordy as possible, I propose a new wording (removing 'flirtation' which was my original suggestion above) thus:

"In the early 1980s, Ainsworth was briefly involved/associated with the International Marxist Group" and leave it at that. End of debate, time to move on, etc. Jprw (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a bad suggestion, but I feel that the statement is a bit contentious so it needs explaining as much as we have, the spokespersons comments are undisputable as commented, and are the only reply to the accusations, in some way some or all of those comments have to go in. Off2riorob (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a bad suggestion. This is exactly why I was so keen to rely heavily on the spokesperson's quote: because anything else introduces extra layers of interpretation which provide a gloss unjustified by the details we actually have. "involves/associated" is a much stronger claim than the source of "attending a couple of meetings at the request of a colleague". WP:V, among other policies. Rd232 ^talk 09:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why I wanted to use "flirtation", to convey the meaning that the involvement was perhaps not serious. Then I checked the word against the define: function in Google only to discover that every defintion given carried a sexual meaning. It seems therefore that unless we can find a synonym for flirtation that is not sexual in nature (sorry that it's come to this but this is what happens when people split hairs) then describing the exact anture of his IMG involvement will involve something longer and along the lines of Clockback's suggestion. Jprw (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be delighted to accept Jprw's text, provided the four references were retained which direct the interested reader to the spokesperson's full statement and the full list of questions which the spokesperson would not answer. The spokesperson's comments and her refusal to answer questions about them are contentious matters, and cannot be included without making the mention rather lengthy. But the one cannot in all fairness be included without mentioning the other, as I willingly concede. The factual statement, which could be disproved or proved by evidence, that Mr Ainsworth attended meetings, is of a different character from the spokesperson's gloss, which is incapable of disproof(or proof). This is, as I am so often told, an encyclopaedia. It should stick to the known, and leave matters of opinion to the material in the verificatory references.. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm fine with Jprw's text. But do we really need 4 refs? The first two, yes [15] [16] but I don't think we need the other two; scant repetition [17] [18] Mimi ^(yack) 10:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with jprw, clockback and mimi on the following statement: "In the early 1980s, Ainsworth was briefly involved/associated with the International Marxist Group". As I and clockback have said, the only factual statement supported by evidence is the fact that Ainsworth attended the meetings. His spokesperson's claim that he attended unwillingly, at the request of a colleague, is not proven, and may be political spin; indeed, Ainsworth deliberately withheld proof (the name of the "colleague", and the number of meetings) from Peter Hitchens when this evidence was requested by Hitchens. Too many ifs and buts to include it. And all four references should be retained, as these can provide full background information to any interested party without making the main article itself too lengthy.Chrisp728 (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If it helps to reach agreement, which now seems a real possibility, I'd accept a reduction of references to three or two, provided the key information is available. I would also add that i do not wish to be the person who adds the item, since I think it would be invidious if I were referring to my own work. Peter Hitchens , logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict x2: I was trying post -> :::::Chrisp728 advocates "full background information" in the form of all 4 refs but in examining the refs I would suggest editors include citations that support the issue in discussion. "full background information" should not mean the full and associated POV of the journalist with respect to Bob Ainsworth. Hence my rejection of those that contain only scant repetition amidst unrelated POV. However, I do not insist upon this as a sticking point and would prefer the matter resolved with all 4 refs rather than no conclusion. In other words: OK, as you wish. Let's do it. Mimi ^(yack) 12:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

New text suggested

As someone who was involved in the Coventry branch of the IMG at around the same time as Mr. Ainsworth, I think I should clarify matters. His involvement was slightly greater than he has publicly acknowledged, but not much greater. He was a candidate member, which would have lasted around 6 months. (To be pedantic, this straddled the period when the IMG changed its name to the Socialist League.) He did attend a few meetings (it probably was more than a couple but not many more) but did not seem particularly interested. At then end of this period he turned down the chance to become a full member, but he just pleaded family commitments and work commitments. This was clearly not the real reason, since it was not very long after this that he became a councillor, which was probably more time-consuming than being a full member of the SL. In retrospect I don't think he was particularly close to the IMG-SL politically even then, but he did not clearly raise any political disagreements. However, Mr. Ainsworth was clearly aligned with the left wing of the Labour Party when he became a Coventry city councillor in 1984, but it was not very long after this that he turned against many people in his local Labour Party who had helped him become a councillor, moved sharply to the right, and was even accused of "witch-hunting anyone he was ever friends with in the past". Mustafa Bevi (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Mustafa. Given what you have said and what is in publiched sources, something like "Ainsworth attended meetings of the International Marxist Group/Socialist League in the early 1980s and was a candidate member before deciding not to pursue his association with the group." This is consistent both with what you said and with material from published sources. Evidence on his swing to the right would need to be found in WP:Reliable Sources. There seem to be sufficient press hounds who have caught his scent that this may emerge soon.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the comment as suggested by Peter Cohen. I disagreed with the earlier suggestion: "....brief flirtation..." because such a statement appears to be both ambiguous and presumptive. The argument against the inclusion of any statement referring to IMG are fallacious. The idea that it is "not significant" appears politically motivated. The reference is a brief one, and surely the reader is more than capable of following up any references and deciding for his or her self if it is significant or not. Therefore, I also support the argument of Mr Hitchens, the key references must be included. I would be happy to add those myself as a 'mediator' though perhaps a more experienced Wiki user may be better suited to the role. Greg hill (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ainsworth attended meetings of the International Marxist Group/Socialist League in the early 1980s and was a candidate member before deciding not to pursue his association with the group."

Peter Cohen I think you've cracked it this looks like the one. And since Ainsworth's article is getting bigger and will continue to get bigger as a result of increased interest in him following his appointment as Defence Secretary the issue of weight would appear to no longer exist. Jprw (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I like.... well I don't really like it, but I am prepared to suffer....

According to his spokesperson, in the early eighties Ainsworth attended a couple of International Marxist Group/Socialist League meetings before deciding not to continue his interest in the group. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

and only the simplest of citation that covers this simple statement is needed (one). Especially if they are all from the same source, and the sun doesn't count.. (in my opinion.) Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I like this wording from Off2riorob as well. I also think the Sun quote is superfluous - it's recycled and scurrilous in tone and there's a whiff of malice in there as well. Jprw (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob's wording. It strips out all tendentious material and is wholly factual. As long as the references cover the spokesperson's statement and the unanswered questions, they're adequate in my view. Despite Mustafa Bevi's interesting contribution, we still have no verifiable source for the 'candidate membership' suggestion. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a slight tweak of Off2riorob's second version: At this time he attended several International Marxist Group/Socialist League meetings before deciding not to pursue an interest in the group. This would be placed in the Early life section, after the Jaguar Cars sentence. To explain: I'm dropping the spokesperson reference as unnecessary distraction in the early life part (it only works if placed in the Defence Sec part, where I don't think it belongs); I've replaced "a couple of" with "several" because it's equivalent and reads better; and "pursue an interest" rather than "continue his interest" as less definitive about the strength of his interest, which reflects the spokesperson's comment that he went at the request of a colleague, which we should take into account even if the article doesn't mention it. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, persue an interest..is fine..and in the early life section. But according to the spokesperson needs to stay somehow as that is a clear verifyable comment that we have and can attribute to, I suggest keeping it alone and not trying to build it into the paragraph. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

According to his spokesperson, in the early eighties Ainsworth attended a couple of International Marxist Group/Socialist League meetings before deciding not to persue an interest in the group. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, can't agree to that as the Socialist League is not mentioned in the source. Would be happy with: According to his spokesperson, in the early eighties Ainsworth attended "a couple" of International Marxist Group meetings before deciding not to persue an interest in the group. Notice I've put the quote in quotes, let's keep it tight. Mimi ^(yack) 16:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes,I like it Mimi, I agree..there is no mention of this socialist league in the comment and adding the a couple as a direct quote is good, I really like it, well, not really like it, but I can agree to insertion, I would like to add the citation that reflects this comment the strongest, one is enough or two if they are from different sources. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

At this time he attended several International Marxist Group meetings before deciding not to pursue an interest in the group looks like the best compromise. I agree with Rd232 that we can in fact drop the reference to the spokesperson.Jprw (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer decided not to continue his interest.. to .. decided not to persue an interest... at the end of the day, he went to a couple of meetings so he must have been interested, persue.. is a funny word and, well... a bit fluffy. As I have said, the only concrete thing that we have is the spokespersons comment and I can not agree to not including a reference to the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

At this time he attended several International Marxist Group meetings before deciding not to continue his interest in the group then. Who is going to do the honours? Jprw (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Something is already in, let us leave it there for a while and look at it and in a bit see how we all feel about it...Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You put your (recent) version in, prematurely. I've dropped the spokesperson part as unnecessary and confusing, and changed "continue" to "pursue", which is better. Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can go with that, I would like to say that this comment is contentious and could have been resisted, however, people that wanted more..at least there is an insertion of some kind about him going to the meetings...which is at least a start. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I too can go with that; I'm glad something's in, as the actress said to the bishop. Mimi ^(yack) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said Mimi, me too...Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but can we hang on a minute? What's the source for this form of words about 'continue his interest' in the group. As far as I can see, there's no suggestion that his interested changed at any time. He attended a few meetings and then stopped. But this notion of interest seems like a weasel word to me. --Duncan (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why I changed it to "before deciding not to pursue his interest in the group". Changing "his" to "an" would be better. Rd232 ^talk 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He didn't go for the free tea did he? or the attractive girls? I suppose it is a bit of an assumption to assume he went because he was interested, it's a bit like hair splitting and I have on objection to either. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

? You don't need to speculate about beverages or other motivations, because the spokesperson supplied one: he went "at the request of a colleague". Could be a boss, political ally, or whatever - sufficient motivation to attend despite not having any interest in the group is perfectly plausible from that - and that's what the source says. Rd232 ^talk 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is cited comment, feel free to add it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

However, if we are to expand the comments from the spokesperson then we will at some point have to mention him, the spokesperson said in reply to the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens interrogation after his hearing rumours or speculation that Ainsworth had attended Marxist meetings in the eighties, that he had only gone at the bequest of a colleague and that attending had only served to strengthen his opinion that he wasn't aligned with their policies. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's too long [19], it was better before. Reverted to what is at least vaguely a consensus version. Rd232 ^talk 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You upset the link, so I reverted to my comment. All my comments are from the link, well cited comments, so it is good to add well cited comments at this point the article is in need of expansion.Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "upset the link", I reformatted it too remove the {{cite}} template, because they are the work of the devil. I tolerate them when they don't get in my way, and this one got in my way from what I wanted to show the cite as. Anyway, the much longer text you're proposing has no support from anyone else, and at present it severely overloads the section - WP:UNDUE. Please don't revert, we have something approaching a consensus version which shouldn't be overturned without discussion. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It was broken when I made my edit, you are almost on the verge of a report for your reverting of my edit. Really you should put it back, undue is no excuse to keep removing my uncontroversial edit, it is well cited and fine, you are one of the two people that wanted to alter the wording of the comment and I have expanded it a bit and there is nothing wrong with it, please don't revert my edits just because it is not your favoured version. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody but you has objected to my addition Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss it I will feel ok to revert my edit. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't reply within 30 minutes, it must be that I don't want to discuss it... Although in fact I have little to add to what I've already said about it being undue; I could add that it reads horribly and is confusingly misplaced and sounds newspapery rather than encyclopedic. But really I was waiting for others to comment. WP:DEADLINE - give it a day or two. Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

excessive citations from the daily mail

excessive citations from any single newspaper is not good, there has been another edit with a citation from the daily mail, too many citations from one opinionated outlet becomes an opinionated article. The recent addition adds nothing of real value Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)