Talk:Cyril Smith

message: I'm concerned that this article is becoming too preoccupied with the sexual abuse allegations, to the extent that the relevant section now makes up about a third of the entire article. Smith was first and foremost a politician and he is relevant for this reason; the allegations are only being reported because of his notability as a politician. I can understand that there's much more information available on the internet of the recent(ish) allegations, but it all needs to be kept balanced. 
I'm going to try and cull back some of the text recently added by an anonymous/IP user, but I'm posting here to let other users know they can reinstate a little information if they see fit. -- Hazhk Talk to me 00:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the text I removed last night should be reinstated. We can state a fact and point readers in the direction of ann article/report - we don't need to include over a dozen quotes when these are present in the reference. -- Hazhk Talk to me 14:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree its given undue prominence, though perhaps more due to a lack of detail about his political career rather than an inappropriate level of detail on the allegations. 87.74.72.73 (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent expansion 

message: I believe that his huge growth was caused by a medical condition. Perhaps the details could be logged. Valetude (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health 

message: I've introduced the sex offences into the first para, in a way similar to the formulation in the Savile article. These offences appear to have been so many, over a long period of time, that they can be regarded as defining the man just as much as, or even more so, than his career in politics. -- The Anome (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Like Savile, it will be the biographical element for which he will now be remembered. Philip Cross (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This par: "In July 2014, it was reported that Smith had put pressure on the BBC [...]we're above the law.'" is an outrageously dubious juxtaposition in that while it ostensibly relates to Smith 'covering up' his own activities, it actually relates to the so-called 'Pencourt' investigation that ended up exposing the "Rinkagate" affair and led to Jeremy Thorpe's resignation. This is immediately clear to anyone who bothers to check the links provided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.190.60 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

text: First paragraph is fine.  Second sentence is fine.  First sentence - not appropriate.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you think it's appropriate? The fact that Smith was a paedophile AND an MP is the most notable thing about him (as being an MP is a meant to be one of the most respectable positions in British society, and a paedo one of the least). This infamy and scandal is amplified even more by the degree of institutional cover up that was going on around his activities (which has not fully been brought out into the open yet). I feel sure the consensus of neutral editors (and readers) will take this view.--feline1 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for engaging in the discussion on this.  Firstly, paedophilia is a medical diagnosis - not one we as editors should give people.  And, he was not convicted of any crime (rightly or wrongly - it's a fact).   Smith's notability stems from the fact that he was an MP, so that goes in the opening sentence.   The second sentence, and later parts of the introduction, then explain the allegations against him.  There is no good reason whatsoever for the word "paedophile" to appear in the first sentence, or in the infobox (it was not his occupation).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree - it is clear to me that it is his COMBINATION of being BOTH a paedophile and an MP that makes him not just notable by infamous. I suggest we seek input from other editors to find consensus on this point, rather than you just keep reverting edits to make the article's tone fit your particular personal view. The opinions of the two editors above seem more in line with my view than yours, and they were made before the most recent revelations about Smith's arrest and the Security Services cover up became known. --feline1 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I'd welcome other editors' inputs here as well.  I don't have a "particular personal view" on this - what I have is a fair amount of experience in the words that are appropriate, and inappropriate, to be used in presenting a balanced picture.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I disagree - to me your edits have the effect of sanitizing the article, and I don't equate bowdlerization with balance: on the contrary, these edits simply make it less obvious that Smith was a serial paedo who abused his political office to both gain access to children and to cover up his actions and pervert the course of justice. However you've already made it plain that you will unilaterally edit the article in line with your own views without waiting for further editorial input and consensus, and have already threatened me on my talk page, so I don't really feel I can contribute much more at the stage.--feline1 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I could have sworn that it was your decision to "unilaterally edit the article in line with your own views without waiting for further editorial input and consensus".  I merely reinstated the status quo ante, and awaited your input to persuade me and others that your changes were justified.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my edits are in line with the views expressed by editors The Anome and Philip Cross above, I don't see how you think they are "uni"lateral.--feline1 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a misrepresentation of the facts.  The version "signed off" by  and  last April - here - is very similar to "my" current version. It certainly does not have the word "paedophile" in the opening sentence.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been a further year's worth of revelations about Smith's paedophilia and its part in the sinister institutional cover up since that version, and in my view my edits are entirely within the spirt of the sentiments expressed by those other editors. I have already suggested we seek further editorial input and consensus, and you have purported to agree, yet in reality you are just arguing with me on a talk page having already threatened me on my user page. --feline1 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't "threaten" you - I warned you, which is not the same thing - but now that you seem to be engaging in this discussion without reverting I'll happily withdraw the "warning".  Yes, there are currently a lot of allegations being made about Smith, but that is all they are - unproven allegations, not psychiatric diagnoses - and the references to him having probably carried out sexual assaults are quite properly mentioned in the second sentence of the opening paragraph, the fourth paragraph, and - very extensively - in the body of the text itself (to the exclusion, incidentally, of very much substance about his work as a politician and MP).   Even the article on Jimmy Savile doesn't mention the abuse allegations against him until the fourth sentence, so I really don't know why you are so insistent about including one (possibly inaccurate, certainly unsourced) word in the opening sentence here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You really don't seem to understand the difference between "seeking consensus" and "just stating and re-stating you contrary opinion at another editor". Continually bickering back at me serves zero purpose. --feline1 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not "bickering" - I'm having a conversation.  When other editors want to engage, I'm sure they will, but at the moment they may not feel any need to do so.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ghmyrtle. Smith's notability is as a politician, and that comes first. Rothorpe (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Do you likewise think Savile's notability is as a disc jockey?--feline1 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I first heard him on Radio Luxembourg in the early sixties. We're not all young striplings here, you know. And your average paedophile tends not to be famous. Rothorpe (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you can find editorial consensus re: it not being hugely notable that one of Britain's most high profile children's TV presenters, DJs and charity activists was a serial necrophile the entire time, hiding in plain sight, good luck to you. The UK media coverage of him in the past 5 years would not appear to bear this out.--feline1 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the revelations about Savile are hugely notable. Understand though that his fame enabled the abuse. It's not the abuse making him famous. Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the abuse made him infamous. What was your point again? --feline1 (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. Well done. Rothorpe (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "The UK media coverage of him in the past 5 years would not appear to bear this out". No, but this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper, so the last fifty years might be more relevant. Britmax (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro para and sex offences 

message: I have a couple of queries about the sentence mentioning the Lib-Lab Pact.
"The Press Office of the then leader of the Liberal Party, Sir David Steel, at the time (1979) in a 'Lib–Lab pact' with James Callaghan, commented: "All he seems to have done is spanked a few bare bottoms."[32]"
The source cited, Private Eye, is not online, so I am not able to check it, but the sentence as written is patently wrong. The Lib-Lab Pact ended in 1978. I don't know whether the date of the quote is wrong or the statement was made after the Pact ended. One way or another the sentence needs to change. Perhaps someone who has access to the source can check this out.
If the statement was actually made in 1978, when the Pact was still in force, is this relevant information? It implies Steel had a position of some considerable influence at the time. It was not a formal coalition, but I believe he attended cabinet meetings. But an alternative reading is that this is a gratuitous attempt to involve Callaghan and the Labour Party in a scandal that involved the Liberals. 
On a somewhat related matter, I believe Smith was the leading opponent of the Lib-Lab Pact. This point probably is worth mentioning, and would beef up the political section relative to the one on scandal. Qlangley (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really - it's no surprise that Cyril Smith was a keener bedfellow of the Kincora-visiting Ted Heath. That is unlikely to reduce any scandal... --feline1 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I shall check that reference. The section on Smith's political activites does need expanding. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lib-Lab Pact 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyril Smith. 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/20121203091905/http://www.gmp.police.uk/Content/WebsitePages/A22934C753EF3F0380257AC300607543?OpenDocument to http://www.gmp.police.uk/Content/WebsitePages/A22934C753EF3F0380257AC300607543?OpenDocument
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) 06:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyril Smith. 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/20161114170953/https://rochdalelibdems.org.uk/en/article/2010/0091439/rochdale-says-goodbye-to-sir-cyril-smith to https://rochdalelibdems.org.uk/en/article/2010/0091439/rochdale-says-goodbye-to-sir-cyril-smith
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) 22:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article has inconsistencies concerning this matter. The infobox and end table state that Smith was Chief Whip from 1976 to 1977, under the leadership of Steel. (This version is supported, FWIW, at Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats). The article text says Smith was appointed by the previous leader, Thorpe, and (variously) that he was fired just before Thorpe's own resignation, or (in the lead) "resigned on health grounds". This confusion needs to be addressed. Harfarhs (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith's time as Liberal Chief Whip 

message: I have changed the order of the first sentence to be more accurate in timeline. His horrific abuse of children was not public knowledge until after his death, unfortunately. The original version didn't make that clear and was confusing in timelines and appeared to suggest voters elected a known sex offender. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of opening sentence 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  06:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem