Talk:Derek Draper

message: this section is very poor, and in need of a rewrite.   
There are alot of negative claims giving undue weight and I know that the gardian was made to publically apologise about these claims. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In general good but here's three possible edits of the text.
Just Psychotherapist as a title.
'In response to these allegations Draper stated that he in fact studied...' Shows that it was a response to a set allegation.
And 'He has also stated he is considering taking legal action against them. In response Staines called on him to serve the writ or 'fuck off'http://www.order-order.com/2009/02/draper-needs-anger-management-therapy.html' If legal action is threatened we should include the other side's response. Or not include the threat at all.
I'd also consider removing the 'Every week I see vulnerable people...' as I don't see what it adds and sounds a tad self serving, and adding something like 'Draper's actions in the 'Smeargate' scandal has been seen by some in the mental health profession as inappropriate behaviour for a psychotherapisthttp://delicious.com/bengoldacre.'
Rsloch (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-styled psychotherapist

message: This section / comment is unexplained and makes no sense at all. why did he do this ,who said he did it , what were the outcomes of it ..in what way is it significant to drapers biography? Is is just an anti blair comment? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommending Tactical Voting against Labour

message: What DD is best known for is subjective but it is how he is often introduced in the media. I see no harm in it staying and no gain in removing it.
As for his emails from Mandleson it is important to give a flavour of what a senior Labour figure was saying to him about the PM as it shows how much of a confident he was (or is) to PM. The quotes aren't too long and are refed so what's the problem?
In general two things, one DD exists in a world of claim and counter claim, insult and counter insult so we will have to quote some of them. As long as they are refed and presented as opinion not fact then they are valid, and two it's always better to include things than remove them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lobbygate and Mandelson

message: This section is not too bad as it stands..apart from this.. which stands alone and doesn't make any sense, are there any other cites for this? and could it be expanded on to make a bit more sense? here it is ......
Draper urged people to vote tactically against Labour in the 2005 General Election, saying, "I don't want my vote to be used as vindication for Tony Blair, I'd like him to wake up after the election and feel like a hunted man"
Why did he do this? Who did he urge and if this statement is to be offered as a quote from Draper, then who did he say it to?
I just don't get it! The cite is from question time and I have twice and I am non the wiser? Read it and see what you think (Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lobygate section

message: The block quote...mentioning , threesomes, cocaine and bondage is nothing but a satirical article in the private eye and doesn't meet BLP guidlines for inclusion and should be removed. Are there any other claims that cocaine and 3somes and bondage are part of drapers life? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  early life section. 

message: To mass edit an article removing perfectly valid material, and links, for example to remove links to Paul Staines' blog, ruins it. If you want to make major changes please explain what you are going to do here and see what people say don't just do it.
Rsloch (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a load of tosh and is basically an attack page, It is not a place to political bandstand, it is a Biography of a living person. I had almost finished rewriting it to be a middle of the road type article. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am rewriting it. To bring some neutrality to it.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstand the concept of Wikipedia. This isn't a solo effort but a group one. Rewriting material that many have worked on based on your judgment is unreasonable.
If you are going to do such large an edit you should state what you are going to do on the Talk page first giving others a chance (and that means a day or two) to comment.
Rsloch (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text: If you have a look here at the WP:BLP you will see what is required, especially this..Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Unsourced or poorly sourced" means just that; it does not mean that you think the journo who wrote the article is an idiot, or biased - it means that the source of the allegation is not clearly identified so that people can check your statements. It's about verifiability. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: political blogspots? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "blogspots" you mean :blogs, certain blogs are deemed reliable sources, either as arms of a known reliable source, or on their own. Others just as definitely are not, since they fall under the category of self-published, unedited works. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 01:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  Blogs can be reliable sources, but in this case the blogs in question are part of the story of Smeargate.
Rsloch (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Edits 

message: I removed part of the 'Internet activities' section of this article, as it was essentialy an unsourced synthesis that seemed to be implying unethical behaviour on Draper's part, without any references to allegations made in reliable sources. Under WP:BLP, all comments about living people, particularly negative ones, must be well-sourced, and original research is not permitted. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph removed 

message: I see user Malcolmxl5 has been reviewing this page and making deletions.
They seem to be very favourable to Derek Draper. This user described a report on speculation as being potentially libelous - which I disagree with. Reporting speculation is only presenting the speculation as a "matter-of-fact" and not supporting the speculation itself.
Also this user removed the nickname because it was unsourced. I found a source very easily - and have added it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macolmxl5 a sockpuppet of Derek Draper or a supporter ? 

message: If possible please try to put any Negative Comments under the subject heading "Controversies", I think it's unprofessional to have a biography completely littered throughout with negative comment, it's supposed to be POV neutral.
I'm not suggesting that these comments should be censored, but just put together under controversies - and ofc make sure they are sourced - but that goes without saying. Kbdguy (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's the very inverse of how we should do things. Segregating negative stuff into a "criticisms" or "controversies" section is discouraged. To quote Jimbo Wales, "I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms" --Orange Mike  |  Talk 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative press 

message: I think quite a few people including myself are watching this page because there are so many anonymous edits.
There was a large text removal which I just reverted.
If you are going to make a change just put in a comment why - and if I have an opinion - I won't revert - I will discuss first if I have a strong view, but won't revert out of respect.
Just either (1) get an account or (2) add a comment why you are making a large change, and you'll be fine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits 

message: Have added a section on the Damian McBride email scandal as it is likely to have implications for Draper. At present it is titled "Damian McBride", but another title might be more appropriate. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damian McBride 

message: Both seem to me useful - revealing details of character and views. Both sourced. I think more discussion about why they might not relevant before deleting again. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an old bloody controversy by now. Draper's a silly monkey probably a Gorilla in fact. However I disagree fully with any vendettas being pursued against him. He has kept away from the spotlight. Think about it this was a man who made a mistake or two. Now he's kept his head down there's no point in blowing everything out of proportion endlessly. Nusgnitteseht (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical Voting against Labour and Mandelson's email to Draper attacking Brown 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Derek Draper. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newstatesman.com/199908160005
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/347375/GOVERNMENT-fixer-Peter-Mandelson-delivered-a-damning-indictment-of-Gordon-Brown-telling-one-of-his-closest-former-aides-that-the-PM-needs-to-change-because-he-is-a-self-conscious-person-physically-and-emotionally.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6078542.ece
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/culture-media-and-sport/analysis-pressure-on-labourlist-$1287846.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: His heart problems are the consequences of long covid. Check the BBC out. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death - long covid 

message: It clearly states on the article, the night of Wednesday the 3rd as the date of his death. What because it’s not the BBC or Guardian? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12930001/derek-draper-dead-kate-garraway-husband-covid.html Hevski77 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: DM has been discussed aplenty; WP:DAILYMAIL covers it (see links to RFCs there). The statement in that article is really woolly though – it says "DM understands he died on Wednesday night..." (my emphasis) which is not the same as stating "he died on Wednesday night". They are not attributing the claim to anyone (it cannot be WP:V) and the fact that it is not corroborated by Garraway's statement means we must be cautious. If multiple sources are reporting that particular date then so be it, but right now they're not. MIDI (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: DM states the date as being , the location being , so this seems pretty explicit in stating "he died on Wednesday night". Per WP:RSPDM, we can't use this to verify, but it does mean we should be wary of obituaries published today that state the date of death as the 5th, when there is reasonable doubt of that being the case. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the DM not a reputable source?  

message: MailOnline understands he passed away on January 3 in a North London  hospital (Not 5 January as state). Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12932987/kate-garraway-derek-draper-request-coma-covid.html 2A04:202:721B:8A00:7CB7:1714:6033:EC3E (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: see above, Daily Mail is not an RS per WP:DAILYMAIL Cannolis (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024