Talk:Colin Moynihan, 4th Baron Moynihan

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

Benazir Bhutto comments[edit]

Why is that for something that "caused great consternation & controversy", the only mention I can find online of this is on Wikipedia?? I have written to the editor at the Daily Express in hopes that he can confirm the story. In the interim, I will remove the comments on the basis of them being pooly sourced, defamatory and potentially libelious. Tabercil 22:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In case the editor lets you know anything. Please let us know. Roger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.101.150.115 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • In fact, to date I have not heard back from the Daily Express at all, and I have not yet seen any independant verfication anywhere. Tabercil 22:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of paragraph on attitude to football supporters[edit]

I can see that this was unreferenced and, in view of WP:BLP the material would not substantiating through referenceds to reliable sources and with an attempt to put both sides of the issue. However, I think that the whole issue was the most prominent part of his political activity and needs covering.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected for a week[edit]

To stop the edit war that has gone on for a while, I have protected the article for a week. Please use the means listed in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to arrive at a consensus. Favonian (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note the user:Zoecraig only edits this page and is repeatedly removing referenced facts about Lord Moynihan without any reason apart from a unsupported assertion that they are somehow incorrect despite multiple references. I strongly suspect that this user is either a friend/relation or more likely a PR agent of Lord Moynihan's. The paragraph being deleted is referenced to the BBC and the Guardian, both reliable sources. I would welcome advice as to how to proceed with stopping this biased and disruptive editing. Blackshod (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response or attempt to justify the deletion of this section from user:Zoecraig?
Some more references for this story:
"London 2012 board suspends Lord Moynihan and Andy Hunt". BBC. Lord Moynihan told a BOA board meeting that he was determined to press on with the action against the London 2012 Organising Committee despite accusations that he is damaging crucial relationships within the Olympic movement, little more than a year before the Olympics begin.,
"Lord Moynihan hopeful resolution to BOA and LOCOG's London 2012 cash row is near". BOA vice-chairman David Hemery - like Coe a former Olympic athletics gold medallist - expressed his disappointment over the ongoing row. Hemery said: 'I find it very sad that the focus has moved to almost a marriage dispute going on. I would have liked to see greater harmony expressed between the Olympic authorities and ourselves. 'We have for many years had a great relationship with LOCOG and Colin (Lord Moynihan) and Seb (Coe) have been friends for many years. To have this kind of public dispute, I do not think is good in general.' {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |publiser= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help),
"London 2012 Olympics: Lord Moynihan faces backlash over legal fight with Games organising committee". Daily Telegraph. Moynihan, who along with BOA chief executive Andy Hunt has been suspended from the Locog board until the dispute over Olympic cash has been resolved, will face accusations that he is taking the BOA down a highly damaging path when the leaders of all 33 summer and winter Olympic sports in Britain gather in London on Tuesday for what could be a stormy National Olympic Committee meeting.,
"London 2012: Lord Moynihan and Andy Hunt excluded from Olympics board meetings". Daily Mirror. The International Olympic Committee fully supports this position, as it said so clearly last week when it was asked by the BOA to define the surplus of the Games."It is very disappointing that this vision is being undermined by the BOA. The sooner we can all get back to focusing on the Games, the athletes and the sports, the better.,
"PARALYMPIC CHIEF JOINS CASH ROW". Sporting Life. A senior official of the International Paralympic Committee has claimed British Olympic chiefs have their facts wrong in their dispute with London organisers over money. Xavier Gonzalez, chief executive of the IPC, says the cash row is damaging to the London 2012 Games and called on the BOA to drop their legal action against the organising committee. BOA chairman Lord Moynihan has written to all Olympic sports claiming their cut of any surplus after the Games should not include the costs of staging the Paralympics.
Blackshod (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for another two weeks. Favonian (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for any justification, or indeed any communication at all from user:Zoecraig to justify their edits on this article on this discussion page. The 'Controversy' paragraph has numerous reference from reliable sources and I simply don't see why it is constantly deleted. Blackshod (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discusssion would be most welcome[edit]

First, Zoecraig apparently wishes to include this text: "By April 2011 he had, with the full support of his Board, resolved the international dispute with the London Organising Committee and the International Olympic Committee amicably seeking a settlement for the future of the British Olympic Association.[1]".

I see nothing wrong with that.

Additionally, Zoecraig appears to want to remove mention of the controversy preceding that settlement altogether, removing this line: "In March 2011 it was reported that his future as BOA Chairman is in doubt, because of a dispute with the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics.". That strikes me as excessive, to say the least.

Here is what I think should be done. First, the section on the controversy should remain, but needs to be rewritten to make clear that, in fact, the controversy is over, and Lord Moynihan has the full support of his board. The way it is currently written, it sounds like his job is in peril, when it apparently is not.

I propose text reading like this: "In March 2011, Moynihan was involved on behalf of BOA in a major dispute with the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics. By April 2011 he had, with the full support of his Board, resolved the international dispute with the London Organising Committee and the International Olympic Committee amicably seeking a settlement for the future of the British Olympic Association.[2]".

Blackshod has removed that, which strikes me as excessive, to say the least.

The first sentence should be cited to the same sources that it is cited to now, but with the quotes to support the notion that his job is or was in danger perhaps changed to instead help the reader quickly understand what the dispute was about.

This does not seem to be a difficult editing problem, and so I hope that both edit-warring editors will comment here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with that approach, however some explanation of the controversy might be useful and the fact that the 'resolution' was in essence a complete submission to LOCOG's and the IOC's demands. The referenced quoted above is a press release from the BOA - Moynian's own organisation so hardly a reliable source., how about:
In March 2011 it was reported that his future as BOA Chairman is in doubt, because of a dispute with the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics with revolved around the funding of the Paraolympics(existing refs). In April 2011 the dispute with the London Organising Committee and the International Olympic Committee was resolved by the BOA submitting to their demands[1]. Blackshod (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds ok. I'd prefer a direct quote from the source if possible. If there are different sources (including the BOA themselves! you can't just exclude them as a source, even if we have to qualify it by saying "BOA characterized the settlement as...") with differing perspectives on how the dispute was settled, we need to make sure to cover that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a quote attached to the ref - it doesn't show up here but if you look at it in edit mode you can see it. I'm anti the 'full support of board' quote from the BOA as it's hardly an independent voice (and it rather has the ring of a PM saying that a minister has his full support - next thing you know they've resigned 'for family reasons') - if you google it you'll see the media was unanimous in stating it was a complete climbdown by Moynihan that indeed the dispute. I can add more refs to this effect if needed. Blackshod (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I have not been involved in this edit war, and hope not to start it again, but I feel that Jimbo Wales text is better, and I will remove the full support of the board bit since Blackshod thinks this is taken as read till fired.
My draft is as follows
"In March 2011 it was reported that his future as BOA Chairman was in doubt, because of a dispute with the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics which revolved around the funding of the Paraolympics(existing refs). In April 2011 the dispute with the London Organising Committee who were supported by the International Olympic Committee was resolved with the BOA [2]
I have removed the emotive Climbdown part, and just reported the ending of the dispute, interested readers can find out that the papers regard it as Climbdown/U-turn whatever.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


That's fine for me Blackshod (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the resulting article references, the quotes seem very long, and how do we justify the selections from the articlesRonaldDuncan (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the articles and I am going to remove all the quotes, since they are selective extracts from the Articles, and it is difficult to justify this on an article which has caused so much discussion, and seems to have been resolved happily between LOCOG and the BOA (according to LOCOG and the BOA:) )RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I would object to such an edit - note ^ a b When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so. from Wikipedia:Verifiability Blackshod (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I already made the edit, and I do not want another editing war:)
I think that is fine for other editors, and you have provided the information earlier in the discussion, but selective precis of the source to create a different article is not with in the spirit of the Verifiability, I thought the quotes for quotes from ABC said "something" with in articles rather than selective precis, which is the wording of the actual Wikipedia entry.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am adding back in the 

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.olympics.org.uk/News/8521fe-london-2012-organising-committee-and-british-olympic-association-sign-settlement-agreement/|title=London 2012 Organising Committee and British Olympic Association Sign Settlement Agreement}}</ref>

since I think it adds some balance and was clearly jointly signed off by the Chief Execs of both the BOA and LOCOG since they have the quotes at the end, since Blackshod deleted it whilst reinstating the quotes.RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "London 2012 Olympics: BOA climbdown brings an end to Locog dispute". The British Olympic Association (BOA) has backed down from its central argument in its dispute with London 2012 organising committee (Locog), clearing the way for a settlement agreement signed last night and announced this morning.
  2. ^ "London 2012 Olympics: BOA brings an end to Locog dispute".

Use and Misuse of Quotes[edit]

I think the quotes in the controversy section are excessive and outside of normal practice in Wikipedia, if anyone else agrees please remove them thanks (Blackshod above disagrees)RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


How about we reduce the number of references (but leave one or two with quotes) after the first sentence as this one episode does rather overpower the reference section as it stands. They essentially say the same thing and were only put in due to Zoecraig's repeated claim that the information was wrong? Note also Jimbo's Wales's comment above "Sounds ok. I'd prefer a direct quote from the source if possible. " Blackshod (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pamella Bordes[edit]

No entry for Pamella Bordes? This was a a big deal at the time and Colin was very much implicated and effected by her whirlwind of sleaze. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1254490/What-Pamella-Bordes-did-From-society-girl-life-hippy-haven.html--MRNasher (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colin Moynihan, 4th Baron Moynihan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colin Moynihan, 4th Baron Moynihan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colin_Moynihan,_4th_Baron_Moynihan&oldid=1207660516"