Talk:Angus MacNeil

message: "MacNeil's credibility as a Member of Parliament for his constituency... was heavily damaged by allegations of a 2005 sex scandal"
Err... says who exactly?!? The Daily Record? C'mon, is Wikipedia an encyclopaedia or a pseudo-encyclopaedia? --Mais oui! 11:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: those weren't my words but it is clear that ceredibility is a matter of discussion in the press. rather than delete please find a form of wording you coniser NPOV that reflects this.--Sjharte 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, rather than debate your personal POV re the Daily Record, I'd point to the Scotsman, the Herald and the Stornoway Gazzette.  The fact that the GTC are looking into this issue (although not mounting an enquiry - that would happen later and even then only if the GTC felt an investigation was necessary) shows that this is more than a kiss and tell.--Sjharte 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Says who? 

message: I have removed material from  that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.
Let this be discussed before any text is re-inserted, there is no rush here.--Docg 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the editing out of the material from the Scottish press has in itself been a reflection of POV.--Sjharte 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Totally agree with Doc. As per my earler comments, and Doc's, everything should be carefully cited. Althoug I agree that no harm will come if we take a day or two it is a fact that Wikipedia is used as a resource by many people, who often have no wish to edit, and would not even know what the discussion page is. It is therefore fair to have at least some, well cited, parts of this event within the main article quickly, in order to serve Wikipedia's readers. Pedro |  Chat   11:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry Doc, you appear to have missed my point, for which I apologise. I have never heard of this article subject, and have no interest in him. I ran across the page on RC patrol,  and have merely tried to help head off an edit war situation that seemed to brewing (no offence to other editors intended). I can't really contribute except to try to help achieve a NPOV I am sure we all strive for. Pedro |  Chat   12:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cool it 

message: Why is the fact that Barra is 'staunchly Catholic' relevant? Certainly it is true, but: 1) Do the neutral sources bear out that as relevant? 2) Many of the Islands are Staunchly Presbyterian - are they less against adulatory? I'm going to remove this unless there's a good reason given for it--Docg 11:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are Barra, and Catholics, getting singled out here? There is clearly an agenda behind those choice of words. --Mais oui! 11:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to query why "staunchly catholic" without a cite when I wikilinked it. I would be bold but page is now protected. Pedro |  Chat   12:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barra 

message: If everyone is agreeing to work together here and not to make any controversial changes without proper consensus first, I will remove the protection. Any objections to that?--Docg 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone completely uninvolved with this page, I don't see the problem with the information removed here  this affair was widely reported in both broadsheets and tabloids, if it is referenced and cited to such publications I don't see a problem with it being included; bear in mind MacNeil has admitted this incident. Giano 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please un protect if page is on your watchlist. It can, after all, be reprotected, but I am sure that the main parties here will use the talk page before major edits. Thanks. Pedro |  Chat   13:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Sky4t0k [ removed] some referenced material. I suspect it was the lurid tabloid tone which caused it to get dumped, as the reference was quite clear. I've [ added it back] in a (hopefully) more restrained tone. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-added 2005 scandel 

message: ....had "kissed and fondled" with a two girls aged 17 and 18 in a hotel room in 2005.
What?  Shouldn't this be changed to...had "kissed and fondled" two girls aged 17 and 18 in a hotel room in 2005.
I know there was an edit/delete fest earlier but could someone at least change this to something legible?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.120 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Outback the koala (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor English 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Angus MacNeil. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526154241/http://www.snp.org/people/angus-macneil to http://www.snp.org/people/angus-macneil
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526154241/http://www.snp.org/people/angus-macneil to http://www.snp.org/people/angus-macneil
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified