Talk:Stephen Crabb

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stephen Crabb. 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/20151222145604/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo050525/debtext/50525-21.htm to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo050525/debtext/50525-21.htm#50525-21_spnew0
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 08:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the "ESA vote controversy", there is the following sentence "a 38degrees petition was launched demanding that Crabb resign his post as patron of Mencap Pembrokeshire.", referenced with a link to the petition. I removed this, saying that the petition was not a secondary source but this was reverted by Jimmy3d0 who said that it was in fact a secondary source. Could you explain why you think this is a secondary source? Surely the secondary source would be a newspaper or news site reporting the petition? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The same goes for a source used to support the same sentence, which is a personal blog. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

text: The "petition" is intrinsically a blog - thus not a reliable source for any claims.  Anyone at all can start such a petition, but that does not make the petition notable at all. Collect (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

text: "Cooking on a bootstrap" is a blog per se, alas. Collect (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A letter to a newspaper is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Neither (aksed elsewhere) is a 38degrees petition. A newspaper report of a petition might be. A newpaper story or editorial would be. If  asserts that a letter is a RS, then he needs to make an argument here pointing to the pertinent wikipedia policy supporting his assertion. He'll find there is none. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buzzfeed is also not a reliable source and so I have again removed this content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Daily Mirror good enough for you? Jimmy3d0 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is a living person we should avoid use of all tabloid newspapers for referencing. Keith D (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

text: It's not a personal thing; it's a wikipedia policy. If you mean this story, then yes, sure, it's an RS. I do wonder about the extent to which "MP criticised" is appropriate content for the article; and the whole ESA section smells of recentism. Are we going to include constituent reactions to all of his votes? If not, what is so special about this reaction, other than that enough people didn't like it.  --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that as it is now, the ESA section is a valid one and adequately referenced.  A lot of people want to know about him and his views.  The section has reflected his views on the ESA issue as well as including some local "colour" and so overall there's no problem with balance.  He has one of the most controversial jobs in UK politics, a poisoned chalice perhaps.  It is virtually certain that there will be huge controversy around his actions in the future and we should allow this to be reflected in the article about him.  That his constituency building in H'west was graffiti'd with a message relating to welfare just a few days before his appointment as welfare minister is almost poetically ironic and tbh I feel that that in itself justifies its inclusion.  100% noteworthy. Boscaswell talk 19:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Boscaswell, although I am not sure why we are debating this under a different heading than the 38degrees one? Anyway, I agree with Boscaswell's comments that this is very relevant, notable and news worthy and the two events which both took place before Crabb was appointed as DWP sec (IE; the vandalizing of his Office in haverfordwest and the setting up of a Petition for him to resign as Mencap patron) which were both related to social security (now his job!) make this completely relevant and appropriate as part of this article. They will certainly add to the overall story for the many people who will now be researching him. KEEP Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, does anyone actually object to the BuzzFeed article being re-added as a ref for the 38degrees petition? I understand that alone it was not enough to hold up the content, but now that there are two refs that do fit the critieria I feel that the Buzzfeed ref would actually add texture for any passing researchers... http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewchampion/stephen-crabb-already-facing-calls-to-resign-from-charity#.oyz7BLwvL Thoughts? Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Buzzfeed has a really poor reputation (See  based on ) and I don't think we do ourselves a favour citing it if it is held in such low esteem. The Pew study is evidence which gives the appearance that Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition on 38 degrees 

message: Anyone know why the infobox is vertically stretching the image (or is it just my browser?). By experiment, seems that |thumb create the same sort of mangling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also occurring in my browser [Google Chrome], perhaps it is the result of earlier vandalism? Arkhangelsk185 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked at WP:VPT - . --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: WP:PURGE or - wht worked for me - Wikipedia:Bypass your cache#Cache_clearing_and_disabling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Stretched image

message: When Crabbe submits his form to parliament, that's a primary source. When parliament publishes the Register of Members Interests, it constitutes a secondary source. Discuss. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the case only if the source discusses it with some analysis. Not a matter of counting the number of links in the chain Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Register of Members Interests

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stephen Crabb. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140717090752/http://www.stephencrabb.com:80/About-Stephen/About-Stephen.aspx to http://www.stephencrabb.com/About-Stephen/About-Stephen.aspx
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 04:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Crabb&diff=next&oldid=711476046, User:Boscaswell:Boscaswell reverted my edit removing two items that Crabb had claimed for, saying "Reinstate example of items claimed as refurbishment expenses. Whole list would be WP:UNDUE. Especially important to have Crabb's claims detail, he is minister for the claims of millions." (I agree that the whole list would be WP:UNDUE)
The reference cited listed these two items in a long list of other items, so I am not sure why these two items are special in some way. The article did not make any comment on these two items, it merely listed them. I think this means that they are not notable. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the detail UNDUE and, tbh, I'm not happy with the work "reveal". There does not seem to be any question but that the expenses were legitimate - in contrast with duck-houses, etc - and there's no suggestion that he was ordered to repay. Morally, of course, they appear to stink especially in juxtaposition with the alleged 'flipping' and the fact that Crabb's mission will now be to starve the poor. But. We're not here to fight a political war. So, much as I might think he's a greedy opportunist shit, a "revelation" that an MP claimed for stuff that MPs can claim for is approaching the tendentious, and detailing a couple of items (as if to say SCANDAL: £500 on a quilt: How MP featherbedded his nest at the taxpayer's expense!!!) is well UNDUE. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items Crabb claimed for 

message: I'm not sure how relevant Stephen Crabb's views on his father's mental state are. He told the Daily Mail in 2014 that, in retrospect, his father might have had some sort of mental illness or personality disorder. I put in a direct quote yesterday but User: Boscaswell removed it, saying it was too much detail. I think if Crabb was at the Foreign Office, that would be true. However, Stephen Crabb is in charge of the UK's welfare policy, and the big issue at the DWP is not pensions or Housing Benefit but disability benefits - and within that, the rise in claims for mental health issues. 
Readers might wonder if Crabb's views on welfare are not just influenced by his and his mother's experience, but also his father's, who was described   in the article as mostly unemployed (he's still alive, apparently).
Any thoughts?
--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure; a couple of thoughts. Readers may wonder, but it is not our role to build a speculative connection between Crabb's fathers supposed mental health issues and Crabb's approach to his job. Next, WP:BLP applies to the extant father, and so we should have better source than Crabb's speculation before we make inferences about the said father. Where Crabb has mae a connection - as he appears to in ref 8, then all is well and good. Where he has not, we should hesitate to tread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree here - the guidelines against using tabloid sources on BLPs are meant to prevent gossip and rumours being inserted and using tabloids as references. However here the material is from statements from Crabb, so this is not a worry, and is clearly relevant to his current job. We should not be overzealous about removing material just because it happens to be from a tabloid if it is not in dispute. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

text: WRT the article linked on benefits - I read the first paragraph of that article - sorry that I did not read the section about prior benefits, but you should note that you can link to a particular section in an article, which would likely be a far better idea.  As to quotes - the DM may not make up quotes but it does select quotes, and often (too often) selects quotes sans context to make a point.  If you ask at WP:RS/N you will find that I give the most generous view of the DM for such matters, and some would simply remove it entirely from all BLPs. 12:22, 8 April 2016‎ Collect Collect (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Read WP:NPOV and WP:RS - our own opinions and what we know  are not part of how articles must be written.  Even if you like yours with oregano. Collect (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

text: It is not every DM claim which could be a problem - but claims made by any source which impact living persons require strong reliable sourcing.  The biggest problem in this article was the claim that a living named and non-notable person physically attacked another person, based on a "juicy quote" in a celebrity interview.  And the DM is not the only source which likes to use the "juicy bits" from interviews, by the way. Collect (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

text: WP:RS is clear that the nature of the claim is what also must be considered.  I point out that no one at WP:RS/N has defended its use for "celebrity gossip" as far as I can tell, and the claim that his father brutalizes his mom is in that vein, as the father is quite non-notable.  WP:RS is not an "all or none" proposition. Collect (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father's behaviour 

message: We seem to have lost the bit about him using some of his expenses to employ his wife. You'll recall that at the time of the MP expenses scandal, the fact that many MPs channeled expenses into their family by employing spouses was considered notable. I'm a little surprised and dismayed that the neutrally phrased fact that he employs his wife has been removed. Why has it been removed? And does anyone have objections to its return? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove it, but I personally don't think it is notable - the fact that it was considered notable doesn't mean that it still is, see WP:Recentism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Employment of his wife

message: I've reverted the addition of the same text once again.  I'm not necessarily averse to this being expanded, but this text isn't ready for live.
* Contains vague sentences about Weinstein and other allegations, which do not directly relate to Crabb (WP:SYN)
* Contains sentences not justified by their source (e.g. asserting that "The Labour Party" demanded something, whereas in fact all the source says is that a single Labour MP said this) (WP:V)
* Contains sentences sourced only to poor tabloid sources such as The Sun (WP:RS)
I think the essential parts of this content that actually relate to Crabb are actually in the article already; perhaps the editors could engage here with what they feel is currently not covered, rather than repeatedly pasting in the same problematic text (overwriting the work of other editors on this).  TSP (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the text twice since for the same reasons. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexting allegations 

message: Please discuss proposed content here, bearing in mind guidelines regarding WP:BLP -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  content dispute 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stephen Crabb. 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/20160401153327/http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/29463/Stephen-CRABB to http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/29463/Stephen-CRABB
*Added  tag to http://www.ceidwadwyr.com/portal-en/our-mps/55-stephen-crabb-mp.html
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) 06:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified