Talk:List of political scandals in the United Kingdom
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom | (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
Contents
Previous discussions[edit]
Should the government's handling of BSE be called a political scandal? Are scandalous incidents leading to political resignations appropriate for this page?
Also, what about foot-and-mouth; the Poll Tax; sleaze; the Dome (although this partially comes under the second question with Peter Mandelson).
We'll end up including everything...!
- Then there's the Ground Nuts scheme from the 50s, that business from the 70s with some northern councils being bribed by building companies; some think the Formula One & tobacco advertising business to be scandalous (particularly that they got what they wanted and their money back), and there's always Gladstone and his fallen women. Perhaps we should just redirect the page to British political history....There is of course the traditional observation that with Labour the scandals involve money, and with Conservatives they involve sex. Malcolm Farmer
surely Mark_Oaten gets the honour of being added to this list! KevinCarmody 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
i can't help but question weather the Burrell_affair was actually a political scandal, but rather a royal scandal. i think there should be a page of royal scandal. KevinCarmody 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
what about local politics[edit]
I just finished this article about UK political scandals and was thinking it may be a good contribution here. I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia works so I will let the pro's decide. http://www.pfhub.com/top-9-political-scandals-in-the-united-kingdom/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.129.251 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
like this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/3594421.stm
Requested move[edit]
British political scandals → List of British political scandals – {It is a list, afterall}
It is a list, afterall. 203.214.49.113 12:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Voting[edit]
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
- Support It's a list as opposed to an article, good catch Mr. IP! --Lox (t,c) 18:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The 19th century and after[edit]
What about Queen Caroline and, quite distinct, Charles Parnell - and a few other events beside.
There should also be mention of the first election for Mayor of London - probably one of the most interesting political events in recent history.
Could also make reference "somehow" to the Chiltern Hundreds. Jackiespeel 17:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
List of British political defections[edit]
Should this be in the See also section? Defections are rarely connected with scandal. Sceptic 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge Political Sleaze (UK Politics) here[edit]
I think Political Sleaze (UK Politics) should be moved here. It's not very substantial as an article and basically just lists a couple of scandals in paragraph form rather than bullet form (as on this page). Tocharianne
- merge Tocharianne 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- merge --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (much better here - let the facts speak. It even has an empty Talk page as I write.)
- Merge. I completely agree. I've just tagged the articles with merge tags, I hadn't realised it had been proposed before. I'll leave it a little while for potential discussion, but this is looking like consensus. That article has a recentist and cherry-picking problem that isn't solvable. Fences and windows (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't entirely merge it away. "Sleaze" is a word that's seen a lot of notable use (e.g. "an end to Tory sleaze"). Even if the article is currently little more than a list, the usage of the word 'sleaze' merits at least its own section in an article on political scandal in the UK. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- How about moving this to "Political scandals in the United Kingdom" and merging Political Sleaze (UK Politics) in? Then this can be more than just a list. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the previous suggestion. Getting rid of the list article and retaining the more article-orientated title Political Sleaze (UK Politics) has greater appeal. Of course, the same thing can be achieved by the original proposal, followed by a name change. Also satisfies the suggestion to retain "sleaze" on its own merit. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- How about moving this to "Political scandals in the United Kingdom" and merging Political Sleaze (UK Politics) in? Then this can be more than just a list. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we can call that consensus. I'm tagging Political scandals in the United Kingdom for speedy move. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
AnythingGate[edit]
Do we really have to follow the press in titling everything as ...gate? Surely more appropriate titles can and should be found that do not play on the name of an American building.
Request for appropriate titling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinCarmody (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- And, further to this, the sections need to (a) demonstrate that there was actually a 'scandal' rather than a few minor press reports, and (b) Follow the sources cited. I've removed sections on the so-called 'Smeargate scandal', and on a supposed 'Labour party immigration scandal' as neither offered evidence of notability, and neither followed the sources. This article shouldn't be used as a dumping-ground for badly-written political sniping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is a disgrace[edit]
Doesn't anyone contributing to this article understand Wikipedia sourcing policy? Nothing belongs in this article that hasn't been described by reliable sources as a 'scandal' - and on that basis alone, much of more recent the material could be (arguably should be) deleted under WP:BLP policy. Furthermore, the 'Sleaze' section is entirely without cited sources and appears to be original research. I'm going to template the article for now, and if something isn't done to sort problems out pretty rapidly, delete everything that isn't properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is useful as a list. I don't think there's much doubt that the rest should go. JRPG (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of political scandals in the United Kingdom. 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/20110615231846/http://www.petertatchell.net/outing/outing%20too%20far.htm to http://www.petertatchell.net/outing/outing%20too%20far.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}
(last update: 15 July 2018).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
No comments:
Post a Comment