Talk:Mark Lancaster, Baron Lancaster of Kimbolton

message: This article should be moved to John_Mark_Lancaster to make it more correct given that it is his birthname Froo.au (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We use the common recognizable name for article titles, so it's correct here. SeveroTC 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I don't know the first thing about UK politics, except that you are still a backwater Monarchy or something, being Yankee scum, myself. I've shrunk the section in a way similar to how I'd do the same to a US politician - if the scandal was unique to the individual, or was highly linked to the individual, it should be mentioned in the article about the indiviudal, otherwise it's appropriate for a more general article. If I removed too much, or too little, I welcome you Royalists telling me about how your angry-yelling political system works, and why some other info should/should not be included. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal was a major scandal; MPs generally were criticised, and some were specifically mentioned but it doesn't look like Mark Lancaster was one of them.  The "personal life" section was also disputed (although it's been removed now)  – I don't think the one source cited is enough, as it has been suggested by Fatzulu that it is biased and doesn't tell the full story (also there are slight contradictions in different sources I can find). snigbrook (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I've looked at the source, and I think maybe the British Council could be mentioned, but I've removed it as "implicated" is misleading (according to the source, the row was about whether Michael Martin was withholding information, and Mark Lancaster was only mentioned as one of the MPs who had made one of the trips). snigbrook (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More information about the British Council but I can't find third-party coverage of this, and the controversy isn't relevant enough to be included in this article, so I've removed the section. snigbrook (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbiased eyes 

message: For edit warring and biography of living persons concerns, this page is semi-protected for one week. Other admins are free to modify, extend, or shorten this as appropriate. Jonathunder (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Biased and irrelevant content removed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcyrty (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is an article about a politician, it is appropriate that most of the article is about politics.  Just because something has been mentioned in two newspapers doesn't mean it should be included in the article; as it has been removed and the Biographies of living persons policy has been referred to it is probably more appropriate to discuss on the talk page, instead of reverting with a misleading edit summary. snigbrook (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I've restored the chronological part of it, as it provides context, but the rest appears to be tabloid-style comments and not the type of content suitable for an encyclopedia. snigbrook (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: How is the content biased, and why should it included comment made to tabloid newspapers? snigbrook (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with Snigbrook (and many of the other comments): we should include only encyclopaedic content. We should obviously mention that he was married and is now divorced, but the tabloid gossip should disappear. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree -- WP ought not be a tabloid in nature. Collect (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I didn't word that very well, but I think you fixed the worst of that. It says 18 months, and the article was published in March 2009. Assuming the article is reporting on the separation within 3 months of it happening (which it appears to), that would equate to 2007-2009. It sounded a bit crass to focus phrase all the dates based on the end of the relationship, but I have no objection if you wish to rephrase this. --h2g2bob (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The critical issue was a possible inference that the affair began before the separation -- which would not be a justified inference based on the cite. Hence making it clear that 18 months was the length of the affair as well -- as some might otherwise view the dats as inclusive <g>. In any case, it appears that the article shall now avoid the worst of the additions, Collect (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: New editor seems bent on same behavious as prior ones wrt inserting improper material per sonsensus. Collect (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: I suspect that ,  and  may be sockpuppets because they have made very similar edits to this page. You are welcome to comment on this: the discussion page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rttyplt. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: has explained his motivations in the "Personal Life" section of this Talk Page above. --Stroller (talk)
 and  look a bit dodgy to me. These accounts have made no other contributions to wikipedia except for editing this page, and I find these edits a bit flattering. --Stroller (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sockpuppetry 

message: Mphammer (who might be another sockpuppet) has made a better edit ([ diff]) to the page, re-adding some of the expense parts, and I think it's mostly good. Although the British Council Trip is more about Michael Martin than Lancaster, I've got no strong opinion about inclusion. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britiish council trip 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mark Lancaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605205605/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/1/shared/mpdb/html/405.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/mpdb/html/405.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090525155411/http://politics.guardian.co.uk:80/person/0,,-6047,00.html to http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-6047,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark Lancaster. 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/20090925141223/http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/international_development/international_development_members.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/international_development/international_development_members.cfm
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) 06:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Checked his service number 531664 on London Gazette. Only promoted to Colonel in 2019. How can he be Brigadier so soon?
BlueD954 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just checked his army number again today and he is still not listed as being promoted. I also searched for "Colonel to Brigadier" for last two years and nothing there either. I have just tarted up a conference citation where he is listed as a Brigadier but surely the Gazette is the more authoritative source. I will tag as dubious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  according to the Gazette, supplement 58580 Page 494 dated 15/01/2008 he was promoted to Major 13 May 2004 with seniority 1 March 2002. (IE when he first wore the rank.)  This means his promotion to Major wasn't published until nearly six years after he first wore the rank.  I'm not sure London Gazette publications should be relied on for prompt updates. perfectly legitimate that he is a substantive Brigadier without it having yet been published in the Gazette as above case demonstrates  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzlepalace65 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fair comment (I blame the Army, not the Gazette, it is they who should push this out). But it doesn't get away from the fact that we have no reliable source that says he has been promoted and this could be a spoof (I doubt that it is, but how can we tell without evidence. Per wp:BLP, we can't write whatever we like about living people). It doesn't have to be the Gazette, the Chronicle and Echo is fine. --19:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

text:  Blame away. BlueD954 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ref he's Brigadier 

message: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-lancaster-17417836/
Deputy Director Joint Warfare, Strategic Command
But Linkedin is not a credible source I believe and that is his own account.
Do not add until agreed.
BlueD954 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ABOUTSELF applies to uncontroversial claims. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointment as a Brigadier