Talk:Greville Janner

Beck controversy

What about the Beck controversy? http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Janner_Greville.html

Janner was never charged so can be presumed to have been innocent but the fact that accusations were made in court is surely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.84 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Documents formerly in the possession of Andrew Faulds

I attempted to remove a citation to an article from the Daily Mail on the grounds this is a dubious source. As this has been reverted, I have tried to make the best of its inclusion. The documents appears to be quoted from by the journalist in question, so my assumption in the edit summary that he had not read them is false. It is still unclear who wrote them though. The article's author, Guy Adams, himself admits: "Both [documents] have a murky provenance. The 1995 booklet is bylined Dr A Van Helsing, a pseudonym based on the vampire hunter from the novel Dracula. The 1992 one is said to have been produced by ‘concerned Leicester parents’." We have enough good sources to suggest Greville Janner might have questions to answer (in ideal circumstances) to make including this passage unnecessary. Philip Cross (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article seems still to be alive, so we can't include this material based on the weak sourcing provided. I have removed it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the passage derived from the Daily Mail again. Those editors' rejecting its validity are greater in number than those supporting its inclusion. Quite apart from Janner being alive we cannot use what appear to be self-published sources (also WP:BLPSPS), and a more reliable source than the Mail does not appear to have considered them worth mentioning. Philip Cross (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail as RS

I agree Daily Mail is not the best source but Janner or his friends would have the opportunity to challenge innaccuracies and threaten libel proceedings. Even more reliable sources than the Mail use unsourced quotes. The claims in the Mail are consistent with the claims by the Derbyshire Policeman and Janners taking leave of absence from the Lords. The text made clear that these are claims and allegations. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In Biographies of Living Persons#Challenged or likely to be challenged is the policy statement: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Rather clear cut. Philip Cross (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not clear cut at all. See Tabloid Journalism the Times and Independent are Tabloid size, so we should add to the following that not all newspapers in tabloid size use such journalism, and the Daily Mail isn't listed here.

"Such journalism is commonly associated with tabloid sized newspapers like the National Enquirer, Globe, or The Sun and the former News of the World. Not all newspapers associated with such journalism are in tabloid size; for example, the format of Apple Daily is broadsheet, while the style is tabloid. The terms tabloids, supermarket tabloids, gutter press and rag refer to the journalistic approach of such newspapers rather than their size.[citation needed]"

Just blanket cutting references because they only appear in the daily Mail isn't appropriate Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail counts as a tabloid, those listed are just examples, because of its sensationalist manner. If you use the string ( site:en.wikipedia.org "Daily Mail" "reliable source" ) in Google without the brackets, you will find this newspaper is consistently thought inadmissible as a source by Wikipedia editors. The Times and The Independent, although they use the tabloid paper size, are indeed more accurately termed 'compact,' as they insist themselves. Philip Cross (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure if I use this string, which I will attempt to do later, I will find a number of wikipedia editors find it inadmissable for this reason. That doesn't necessarily mean that a majority would find it inadmissable in this case. Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:John is knowledgeable about the Daily Mail, and may be able to offer insights about its suitability as a source concerning claims about living people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's one user's page but I'm going to be outvoted so not much point in discussing further at present.Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The LRD 1995 pamphlet is referenced here (DM again), although sans publisher details. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable tabloid source about fringe document from 20 years ago with very limited circulation. We need proper reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Philip Cross (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You aving a pop son _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Include this, or not?

"In a statement issued after the CPS decision in April 2015, his family said that Janner was innocent.[9]"

Nearly every criminal would hope his or her family would stick up for them. Is this factoid therefore even worth recording? --John (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Or even worse, "entirely innocent of any wrongdoing". I wonder if Fred West's family or Harold Shipman's wife would have said this of their respective relatives? In the former case, no charges were ever proved, as in this case. Should we grant West similar licence to defend himself from beyond the grave using his relatives' supportive words? If not, why not? --John (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

well yes they would, but I still think it's worth mentioning, especially since he didn't or couldn't speak for himself then. We would probably record the reaction of an accused person - even though that might often be similarly unsurprising! - and this is probably as close as we can get here. I think the version around here is pretty good. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

John what you said in your first comment is quite true, but forgets the special circumstances of this case. In Janner's case, one of Janner's children would have had "power of attorney" over all of his affairs because of his advancing dementia. It is quite right therefore that they would have defended him in a statement, and this is the only defence Janner will now ever get. Technically he died "presumed innocent" because he could not be prosecuted in the normal way, and the "trial of the facts" would not have established his guilt. The statement from the CPS that he should have been prosecuted when medically fit does not automatically assume guilt. We cannot know what his defence counsel would have said in court which might have convinced a jury of his innocence. It is worth noting that practically all the articles about the Janner case since the CPS decision in April have mentioned the family's innocence that he was innocent. That assertion remains in most of the articles since Janner died. That the information in the public domain makes his innocence difficult to accept does not matter for our immediate purposes. Philip Cross (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the bit about "licence to defend himself etc" is not how I see it at all. This encyclopaedia isn't here to judge, condemn or defend Janner, just to summarise the facts as we see their relevance. We should be discussing it on that basis, not with regard to "granting licence" - we don't do that anyway. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We are supposed to present all viewpoints. On the child abuse allegations, his family's statement is the only authoritative source presenting the other side, so it is necessary to mention it in the summary as well as in the main text. Philip Cross (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I understood your argument, but I do not think Janner's protestations of innocence via his surviving family are particularly notable to mention here, as nearly all people accused of a crime and their families protest their innocence; we could actually take that as read. Indeed it would be far more interesting and worthy of inclusion if his family had said he was guilty. I put in a compromise version without the quote which I could have lived with. I now think that with the quote it fails NPOV. If we were going down that road we would need a quote from one of his alleged victims. We don't generally play off quotes against each other in this way though. --John (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the version without the quote as being a compromise on NPOV, having thought carefully about your arguments. --John (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Rt Hon / paedophile

We should remove the "right honourable" tag from this pervert's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.125.124 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The infobox accurately lists the honours to which a person was entitled: it's not our place to decide that they don't deserve them. You may note that Jimmy Savile's infobox refers to him as 'Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG', as he indeed was at the time of his death. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)