Talk:Brooks Newmark

message: Can anyone please the last 3 december edits? Do they polish the life of Brooks Newmark / or are they just deleting irrelevant information? I cannot choose... Thanks, Super48paul (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  December edits 

message: How shall we handle this sexting/photos to young woman thing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.155.115 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it requires anything other than an acknowledgment that it happened, its consequence (resignation from the government) and links to relevant newspaper articles reporting it. I think the article, as it stands, has it about right. We must always remember this is a biographical entry in an encyclopedia, and nothing else. WatermillockCommon (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the Mirror is under fire from pretty much the entire political spectrum, it would be an NPOV violation not to include details about said criticism and the IPSO complaint. Sceptre (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely agree. It has escalated considerably since Saturday evening. We must be careful not to make the event the main subject of the article though. WatermillockCommon (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooo, I don't know... we might even yet get a whole new article. Malin Sahlen beckons, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do get a new article, it's certainly looking like it'll be about much more than Brooks Newmark... he now just appears to be one part of what is a much larger discussion surrounding personal privacy, the relevance of politicians' morality, sexism, feminism, the Conservative Party, freedom of the media, the internet.... could make a very interesting read if its fallout is large. I just think that if that does happen, we shouldn't put it ALL in this article, and keep this about Mr Newmark. WatermillockCommon (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the Sunday Mirror article is rather shabby. Perhaps that's intentional. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

text: There is some murmuring going around that Newmark could've been the victim of a sexual offence; see  Sceptre (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Sir Alan Moses, IPSO chair has said "he could have launched an investigation into the story even if no complaint had been received." The complaint has also been passed to the Metropolitan Police . Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Re this wholesale removal: perhaps, User:Sayerslle, you could explain to us what you mean by "supererogatory"? If the Personal life section  is not the appropriate section, by all means move it somewhere more appropriate. My use of the word "scurrilous" might well make it sound like I am "making a POINT". But my views are wholly irrelevant. This is not "extravagant material" - this is factual material, published soberly all over the British media, that has brought Newmark more into the public eye than any other single event in his political career so far. (Reminder ... Sara Keays has her own article etc., etc.) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And the event 'that has brought Newmark more into the public eye than any other single event in his political career' is mentioned - imo everything else is extravagant - using that word I hope correctly, meaning  wandering away from the  subject, too far, - its just how it struck me in the instant of reading - it was being discussed on  Question Time - I still think so,  a quarter of an hour later kind of thing, but if you restore it , fine - I wont agree , but I wouldn't want to dispute further about it. just honestly how it struck me. Sayerslle (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that the incident is significant also because of the number of other Conservative politicians targeted in this particular piece of "journalism" and because it is seen as a test case for the newly created IPSO. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

text: So my argument is really that this incident is noteworthy in itself, but since it is not sufficiently significant to have its own article, it should be kept here. Perhaps other editors think the expanded detail would be better placed at the IPSO article? Having said that, I see no resosn why, in an article as small as this one, the incident should be mentioned twice; so I have removed it from "Personal life". It is, in a way, quite the opposite of "private life" and this is exactly what the "investigative journalist" responsible intended. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper sting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brooks Newmark. 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/20110527210409/http://www.brooksnewmark.com/about to http://brooksnewmark.com/about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527210409/http://www.brooksnewmark.com/about to http://brooksnewmark.com/about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201175430/http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/profiles/mp/Brooks-Newmark/366 to http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/profiles/mp/Brooks-Newmark/366#Personal
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page looks like it is being curated to sanitise it. Brookie :)  { - like the mist - there  one moment and then gone!}  (Whisper...) 16:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible page curation