Talk:Stephen Timms

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

bloated section - Muslim attack[edit]

This section has been expanded with a lot of detail that is not about this living person and is coatracked onto this article, I suggest if the extraneous details are noteworthy, they get their own article and are not coatracked here. Suggest trimming back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of content that is bloated and coatracked and has nothing to do with this living person at all.

A website known as Revolution Muslim described her as a heroine, and responded to her conviction by ­publishing a list of MPs who voted in favour of the Iraq war, and giving advice as to how to find details of constituency surgeries. It stated: "We ask Allah for her action to inspire Muslims to raise the knife of Jihaad against those who voted for the countless rapes, ­murders, pillages, and torture of Muslim civilians as a direct ­consequence of their vote

It's all about the attack on this living person, why the attacker tried to kill this living person, trial of the person who sought to assassinate this living person, and related aftermath--including publishing killing lists for similar living persons. The RM bit was a direct consequence, and he and British authorities have reacted to it in turn. I don't see a need to censor it. But if you think there should be an article, what would you suggest it be named? The perps name?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new subheadings only emphasise the undue weight that has made this section so bloated. It is not censoring an article to omit matters only tangentially related to its subject. Information about the attack on Timms should be limited to no more than a description of the act itself, what effect it had on him and perhaps the sentence passed, a paragraph at most. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the content remains relevant for most readers. It appears to be over-referenced and could probably usefully be trimmed a bit more. Maybe later it might be appropriate to give it a substantial pruning, but not yet. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed it slightly.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed it more, its coatracking, that aftermath section was pure coatracking, this is a BLP please don't bloat it with content that has nothing to do with the subject of this BLP at all, start yourself an article about it. The subject of the BLP is minding his own business and a woman walks in and stabs him, she says its because he voted for the iraq war, fine thats it, its not an excuse to coatrack terrorism and the whole of the Iraq war here. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Epeefleche Fayenatic's point about over-referencing, although in a contentious part of a BLP article each assertion might require a double check. The additionally trimmed version seems strong to me; it contains everything necessary for a reader to understand what happened but adheres to WP:RECENT by not depending on pruning at some future unfixed date.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making it personal. Consensus is missing, myself and Alistair support the trimmed version, user Feyanmatic London suggested it needed trimmed a bit more, and supports leaving it and pruning it later which fails WP:RECENT, there is no consensus to coatrack the muslim issue here, as I said write yourself an artixcle and stop coatracking issues that are nothing to do with this living subject here, start a RFC and ask people which versdion they prefer, this is a BLP not a soapbox. The radical Islamist assassination attempt on Stephen Timms - Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off2 -- this is all about the living person, appropriate material for this article. If you will not listen to consensus, I suggest you stop being disruptive. Bring this elsewhere, or else I fear we will end up at AN/I again with regard to your disruptive editing, which you continue to engage in despite my efforts and those of others on this page at discussion. You have not articulated any rationale for your continued disruptive edit-warring. This has nothing to do with wp:recent -- we have oodles of articles, over many months. There is clearly no coatrack. This is all about an assassination attempt on Timms, the related trial, and the directly related aftermath where more copycats were encouraged, and Timms reaction to it all. Please take this as a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You take it where ever you want, and stuff your warning up your shirt, anyone that is uninvolved can see you are coat racking your obsession on to the living persons BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Off2riorob. The focus of this article is Timms. Details primarily about Timms' attacker do not belong here, but feel free to start an article on her. Yworo (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what fact, precisely, about his attacker do you feel is not relevant? Her motive?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clearly in favour of Off2riorob's edits not merely in terms of numbers but in arguments advanced. I note Epeefleche has issued "a final warning" and templated Off2riorob's talk page, an act not only unjust (since the 3RR rule is nowhere near being breached), but also seemingly calculated to inflame matters. Issuing threats is not the way to resolve this dispute. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where is there consensus for ... let's see ... removing the word assassination? Let's just start with his first edit. Now, do you view that as a BLP issue? If so, why? As a recentism issue? If so, why? What incisive analysis have you engaged in that has escaped me that would make it the ineluctable conclusion that Off2 must, absolutely, just as quick as he can, before more damage is done, remove and replace that phrase in a simmering edit war repeatedly? Let's focus on that one point, and then we can discuss all others one by one. I'm all ears, and will be pleased to learn that it is not simply more of the same that we have dealt with in the past. Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Balancing his extensive political career against his very brief, measured response to the sentence passed on Roshonara Choudhry I am convinced adding further detail gives the incident undue weight, but the burden is not on the holders of a consensus viewpoint to persuade each editor who opposes it. Rather, additions to the article need to be supported by a valid argument. What is missing from the article as it stands that would help a reader understand who Stephen Timms is? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What led his attacker to attack him, what her sentence was, and what the attack inspired in its aftermath that Timms reacted to. This could all be covered in three sentences (if they are the right ones), and would be consistent with all manner of other articles on wikipedia of similar ilk. Take a look at our assassination articles, and I believe you will find this is the norm -- censoring out the attacker's motive is clearly not.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three queries you've raised all relate to Choudry, not Timms. This is not one of the "assassination articles" you're referring to; it is a biography, the subject of which was the victim of a grievous assault. In the current version this incident accounts for over a third of the total word count. WP:Undue states,

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

Alistair Stevenson (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


OK, although I see where he's coming from, I think Robb's removals are perhaps a little too drastic here. So, I've replaced bit of this. It is relevant to record that she attacked him because of his voting for the Iraq war - because that's got to do with him and not only with her (he did the voting). It also seems relevant to record that she was (she admitted) influenced by watching sermons, because that explains Timms' subsequent campaign for restricting internet material. (The sentence about him doing that makes no sense without recording her influences). I agree that recording the Islamicist rants about attack on one muslim is an attack on all is unnecessary - and the reaction after the event of the websites also seems tangential to understanding Timms. Is this approaching a compromise? --Scott Mac 09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never removed the sentencing details or the basic reason she did it. The headers are overly dramatic. Assassination attempt makes it sound like she was some kind of professional instead of a deluded young woman with a small kitchen knife, and there is no need at all for the aftermath header, more added drama. the whole section is better titled, what the press were referring to it as which was a surgery attack. The comment that he is seeking to ban material from websites is completely throw away, worthless political band-standing, he will do no such thing and has done nothing about it. I am sure he has wanted to do many well meaning things and those haven't happened either. Here's my version - Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Standard citation 4/11/10 you are incorrect; "Timms welcomed YouTube's decision to remove Awalaki's sermons within hours of sentencing but feels there is more to be done". I think the details of what stirred the attacker to such a deed are more important than some details which you left in your version, such as her gestures before the attack, and specifics of Timms' injuries. Perhaps you left in the length and nature of her weapon to suggest that she was not equipped by a professional assassin, but there are clearer pointers to her working alone. I would certainly be inclined to restore references to the material that she watched on the internet. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "assassination".[edit]

I have reverted the edits made by an anon. late last year that replaced "murder" with "assassination". The word "assassination" is subjective and POV, not to say possibly hysterical, in this case. No major reputable media outlet has used that term, which might well cause confusion among our readership. Not all attempts to murder politicians are assassination attempts in the conventional sense--the circumstances were somewhat different, but we do not call the attack on Nigel Jones an attempted assassination.

I think it best to use the phrase "attempted murder", which, after all, is what Choudhry was found guilty of--I realise there is no specific crime of "assassination", but that term was not used in the coverage of her trial, either--rather than telling our readers how to interpret her motivations, thereby allowing our readers to interpret them as they wish. Choudhry is neither a terrorist in the conventional sense, nor is she a professional assassin in any sense, so I would be loth to describe her as an assassin without good reason and a reliable, neutral source to back me up.

I would be more than happy to change it back, if that is what people want, but it seems like a big jump for an anon. to call the attack an assassination attempt with no prior discussion and no subsequent comment. Lions of Inquiry (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opinion that "attempted murder" is a better WP:NPOV heading. However, "assassination" was used in major reputable media. When I google the name of the attacker (YMMV), the top result is her profile in the Guardian which uses the A-word in its subtitle; the first linked news story uses it in its first line. From the next 10 results I randomly picked this blog by David Osler which likewise uses the word. Search the news archives, and it's in the Telegraph and Independent too. That's why I hadn't reverted it myself. – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right. It appears my google search might have been better defined... although, as you say, my general point was to raise the NPOV issue. Thanks for examining my lazy handiwork, hopefully it'll remind me to search properly next time! Best wishes, Lions of Inquiry (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Timms. 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) 08:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Timms. 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) 10:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Timms&oldid=1208061517"