Talk:James Purnell

message: I have restored the Daily Mail story. There is no legal action pending. And the Daily Mail has neither printed an apology or issued a retraction. This is a matter of public record and since Purnell has been all over the newspapers today and lazy journalists use wikipedia, this surely should be here.
:Hi there.  I'm Mike Godwin, and I'm the general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. I've edited this article to remove the Daily Mail story because it has been pulled by the Daily Mail. The fact that the Daily Mail has removed the article is evidence that the Daily Mail does not currently believe it can withstand legal scrutiny. It's the nature of defamation law in the United Kingdom that other newspapers are careful about publishing stories of a retraction of this sort for fear of seeming to repeat the defamation and create liability for themselves. If the Daily Mail story is restored, then a link to the story -- not a link to the website generally, which cannot in itself suffice as an adequate citation under BLP policy -- might be appropriate.  In the meantime, the article is not available as a citation source. Now, I could simply restore this article and have it frozen with my edits, but I'd prefer to try moral suasion first. So I'm going to restore the original edit I put in this morning.  Please understand that I am doing so after having researched the legal and factual issues involved. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.  MikeGodwin 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail story 

message: One of Jimmy P's political biatches, sorry assistants aka Sean Parker-Perry (also Longdendale Councillor) decides not to remove this tid bit of information, in fact he says "added DWP confirmation that no case to answer frm tabloid story". 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Purnell&diff=prev&oldid=106567847
So whilst it did happen, the DWP didn't give a shit that James used his the parliamentary car that night to get into someones knickers.
But coincidentally, when James starts to head up the culture club, Sean removes the statement completely!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Purnell&diff=prev&oldid=142212449
There is definitely a political whitewash going on and I don't think it is fair to users of Wikipedia to be blocked of adding valuable information even though the story has been since removed from the Daily Mail website. Wikipedia is becoming a playing field for politicians to make them look squeaky clean.
I can prove to any Wikipedia admin that there is a political motive to this and prove that IP address is of Sean Parker-Perry. Many Wikipedia editors will be able to confirm that IP address is Sean Parker-Perry, who is a Longdendale Councillor, Labour party member,  ex train conductor and now a political assistant for James Purnell. He has complained many times through your OTS.
--Gayboy-ds 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail Story confirmed by one of James Purnell's Political Assistants 

message: Could you provide proof that the Daily Mail is being sued for the article? It seems fair to leave the reference to the Daily Mail article in and add a comment to the litigation with, of course, your source.
One gets the impression that this has entry has been cleaned and revamped to present a whiter-than-white image for someone being touted as a potential cabinet minister. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.70.48.19 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for this claim? 

message: I've deleted the last para - the Daily Mail is already being sued about the article in question and it may not be such a reliable source - David Gerard 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  last para commented out 

message: Just to add that one of James Purnell's employee's regularly visits this page and deletes any negative comments about the Labour Party MP. --Gayboy-ds 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Lock 

message: There should be a wikilink to Royal Grammar School, Guildford. Coyets 14:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Parliament 

message: I would like to start a new debate as to if the information about the newsnight interview should be included? It has been commented by many people on the Guido Fawkes blog if you do a search on there:
Google search
Just because the Daily Mail source can no longer be found/not since been restored, does this mean it should be removed even though it did happen?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayboy-ds (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsnight Controversy 

message: says "Purnell is engaged to film maker Lucy Walker." but the linked to Lucy Walker is a boat, not a person and the other Lucy Walker in Wikipedia died before the subject was born. Should we remove the link? Simon Marchese (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, it make no sense to keep the link. A citation for the engagement would be good too, I'll find one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've removed the link and added a citation to verify his engagement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Smashing Simon Marchese (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: News just in ... well news to me anyway: "So, it is perhaps just as well that the sideburned smoothie, tipped as a future Labour leader, has managed to find himself a new partner to keep his spirits up. She is, I can reveal, shapely blonde political lobbyist Sophie Sutcliffe, who, at 27, is 12 years his junior."  Simon Marchese (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to have been a small editing battle regarding Purnell's on/off engagement recently. I'm more concerned by the man's Parlimentary conduct myself but the two editors who have reversed negative information on this topic User:Sixtyplant60 and User:TwitTERerR have never edited anything else on wikipedia. Potentially this may be innocent but it does seem like sockpuppetry. In any case, I did a quick news search which suggests "The pair later got back together". See here. It's dated 5th June 2009 so appears to be the most up to date. Might be worth tweaking the 'Personal life' section. 2writer (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Issues such as this can influence a person's life (IIRC there was a recent incident in Parliament where the Conservatives tried to use wikipedia to prove Gordon Brown wrong, and it later emerged that a member of the party had edited an article on wikipedia to win the argument) and in cases like this the information must be scrupulously sourced (for further information see our policy on biographies of living people). The Daily Mail is a tabloid and does not count as a reliable source, broadsheets do count as reliable sources, but if the edit war continues I will remove the information from the article altogether. A lack of information shouldn't hurt the subject, but incorrect information based on poor sources could. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm more than happy for the 'personal life' section to be removed entirely. Then we can concentrate on the more important issues. 2writer (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also be happy for the section to be removed. As this seems the consensus, I'll do it. Rwendland (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: If you find this link useful may you please add it to the article’s external links: Interview with James Purnell on Power and Ideas Thank you, Anon111 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Promo link. jonkerz♠ 00:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request by Anon111

message: He played a vital role in a significant and controversial piece of social change... shouldn't we have a section on this?  The ramifications of it are only just being fully realised, and it seems like it's not working out as it was claimed it would (it seems to have led to lots of people with health problems being moved to lower rates of benefits, but few being able to move in to employment).  Anyone able to put something together for this?  Or is there a separate article on these reforms that should be linked to?  Ta.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.12.198 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  His role in incapacity benefit reform/ESA? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James Purnell. 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/20080628165459/http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/consumer_rights/reports/Consumer%20rights%20and%20problems/First_which_awards_news_article_557_117068.jsp to http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/consumer_rights/reports/Consumer%20rights%20and%20problems/First_which_awards_news_article_557_117068.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811001527/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835226-alan-johnson-to-take-on-boris-johnson-for-london-mayor.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835226-alan-johnson-to-take-on-boris-johnson-for-london-mayor.do
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) 11:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is evident that with his labour history James Purnell has been appointed a head of the BBC and has inevitably biased their broadcasting. Should this appointment ever have really been made? 2A02:C7C:826:600:9CB3:BC83:D8D:BFC8 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has James Purnell made the BBC Labour biased?