This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Swiss media saying "the net is rushing into the scandal, and a wikipedia editor added cocaine to the hobbies" -->
this --
Itu (
talk) 17:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I requested semi protection because the
Daily Mail were reporting the same about wikipedia on Saturday night, presumably and most probably the Swiss press just picked up the Mail story. ♫
SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 23:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
BLP hysteria?
Aren't we being a bit too conservative here? Would mentioning cocaine explicitly (as opposed to just linking it) breach BLP?
[...] seemingly showing him snorting cocaine[source1][source2]...[source200] at a party [...]
Using "a powder" seems a bit of a hypocritical euphemism that is not protecting WP from anything, considering the link to cocaine.
46.208.75.117 (
talk) 19:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
We have no reliable sources it is cocaine. We only have reliable sources for white powder, and an unverified claim is a BLP violation, obviously. ♫
SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 20:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Also these days the % quality of any white powder being cocaine is perhaps dubious. Though, what else could it have been. He was talking about Coca-Cola, and thus powder unlikely to have been Speed or Ecstasy. So why not say COCAINE!?
Rodolph (
talk) 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I already anwered your question, sigh, please actually read my answer. We build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources not on applying a perhap failed logic to events. Indeed it could have been almost anything, including a legal high or glucos¿se, but we dont care to speculate, we rely on verifiable sources to indicate what we should add, that way BLP protects the people we write about by not allowing editors to specualte or make unverified asertions, as you appear to want to do. ♫
SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
... ha, unlike the BBC, eh?, which called Sewel a Tory at some poin.
Rodolph (
talk) 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I havent read any sources stating it was "a powder" they all write "cocaine". So should we follow reliable sources or apply our own failed logic to the events?
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ· 06:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
yes, I agree with Maunus,
Rodolph (
talk) 06:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
the word powder is now linked to cocaine, which seems fair? But my side point was that modern coke is I've read only about 10% cocaine, so is it still cocaine anyway?
Rodolph (
talk) 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
No, I think that is actually worse in terms of BLP. The side point makes little sense, if it contains cocaine then it is cocaine regardless of the percentage of materials with which it has been cut. Just like it is not inaccurate to say that someone drinks alcohol even if their alcoholic beverage of choice has only 4,6% alcohol in it.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ· 07:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I was sort of joking, as the whole story is silly-season stuff.
Rodolph (
talk) 07:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi Squeakbox
Why is using "cocaine" unacceptable, but it is acceptable to link "a powder" to
cocaine? It seems to be even more libelous to me, wikilinks cannot have reliable sources.
The only cited source has cocaine in its very title, and two occurrences of cocaine in the body of the article, which also mentions once "white powder", not "a powder".
You say, "We have no reliable sources it is cocaine". Of course we don't, but I'm not asking we state that it *was* cocaine. We already have a weasely qualifier there ("seemingly"), and we can add as many as necessary ("allegedly", "it was widely reported in the press"). In fact, if anything, I'm surprised that we woulnd't have many more sources for such a bold claim.
I rather like the note I added: 'In an auspicious sign of things to come the House of Lords' Official Report (
Hansard), on 16 Jan 2007, (around 5.40 pm, column 609), records Lord Sewel as having said:'My Lords, at this stage in the debate there is a certain temptation merely to say, “Line me up ...”.'[1]
But alas it was removed.
Rodolph (
talk) 20:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
It was removed as WP:OR, since you cite nobody but yourself for it being 'auspicious' - or even relevant. And having looked at the full sentence, it clearly isn't.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah, thanks for your charmless reply.
Rodolph (
talk)
Would the article be enhanced by a photograph of Baron Sewel?
66.67.32.161 (
talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
There are better pictures of him online, but I think the one snorting lines of coke (allegedly) and the one of him in a prostitutes bra, are not licensed for wikipedia.
Spacecowboy420 (
talk) 13:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
divorce
Has his third wife divorced him yet for cheating on her with whores? Not like she didn't know what she was getting.
98.10.165.90 (
talk) 21:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply