Talk:Damien Moore

LGBT

An editor added Moore to the LGBT politicians category while providing a dead link as reference, but I have found a reference which says that he is gay. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute

A statement was added on the 4th of July which stated that Damien Moore is openly gay. This has been reverted a couple of times, and discussed at ANI. I restored the statement, and protected the page believing the requirements of BLP were met through the references used. These references (Southport Visitor and this) have been disputed, so I boldly removed the statement and dropped the protection of the page. I encourage editors to discuss this in a civil manner so that we can find consensus to add to leave out the statement. Thank you -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The strongest source for the assertion that Moore is gay is coming from the LGBT Representation and Right Research Initiative. A paper at their site on the 2015 election has him listed. Since that's research done at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, I'm leaning toward a valid, scholarly source. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. It depends where they got that from. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred I wouldn't generally give more weight to a "scholarly" paper on an individual person's sexuality like we would for academic/scientific research. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That paper says something else entirely. It doesn't say "openly" about Moore, although it does for others, using "out" rather than openly. The only thing it says about Moore is that he is a likely loser, a "longshot", in the (then) upcoming election. Dunno what that says about the quality of Prof. Reynold's crystal ball in other matters.

I'd also question whether this is a scholarly paper in the strictest sense; it seems as nearly as much advocacy as analysis. Anmccaff (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Well, he did lose the election by 1,300 votes.... Side note: his 2015 run isn't mentioned in the article, just his 2017. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

But, just to be clear, the source discussed, Reynolds; "UPDATE: LGBT MPs and Candidates in the British General Election May 2015" was dated April 28 2015. The fellow won that time, no? Anmccaff (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Chapel Hill/ Reynolds paper cites various political party groups as the sources. It looks like the LGBTory, the Conservative LGBT group, had issued a press release on 27 April 2015 where they listed 42 candidates that were "out", including Moore. That release is available here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that is promising. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It appears to list Reynolds as a source; that's circular.

More importantly, though, I think you can see that Reynolds is using "out" more restrictively than some of the other sources. Anmccaff (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the referencing is circular. The LGBTory press release refers to the Reynolds paper to indicate the number of LGBT candidates from other parties, they are after all making the claim that at the 2015 election with "42 out candidates" they had the largest number of the various political parties in the UK that were contesting and had responded. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's about as circular as cites can get; Bob cites Mary, who turns out to have cited...Bob. Mary's intervening use doesn't make Bob's second paper any stronger; the contrary, in fact. That's a side issue here, though; the main one is that Reynold's is using words slightly differently from the other source. One person's "out" isn't always the same as another's "openly," but it is for the Reynold's paper. Anmccaff (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No. John Pugh won in 2015, a seat he'd held since 2001 (and the Liberal Democrats had held since 1997). Pugh did not stand for re-election in 2017, when Moore and the Tories gained the seat. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, the prognosticating isn't off, and the Wiki article showing him as a current MP is correct. Anmccaff (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The term "openly gay" does seem like the archaic remnant of a time when it was unusual for gay MPs not to hide their sexuality. But it doesn't seem like there's a basis to dispute the factual accuracy of the claim given local newspaper direct quotes and official party sources Dtellett (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the subjects personal objection, you mean? That's a big aside. Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

When has the subject "personally objected"? There is an anonymous commentator with access to a Westminster IP claiming that they do, but in today's UK political climate there is more political capital to be made from a "Tory MP returns to closet" story than there is in "Tory MP admits to being gay". So I am hugely suspicious as to who is making any such claim (although I can't think which political group would think there was any advantage to it).

Who's going to phone his office and just ask what their take is? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You?))) ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

So can we say, from these discoveries, that these sources may have got it all wrong? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If it weren't for the LGBTory press release, I'd be willing to say it might be a mix-up. However, one would hope the subject has a good enough line of communication with his own party that the press release is right. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I would hope so. What are we all thinking then? Re-add? Keep off? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Add but attribute? "LGBT+ Conservatives named Moore as one of 42 'out candidates' in the 2015 election." —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems a bit less controversial. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• Although it's proposed in good faith, I don't think we should include the wording above at this time. Let's look at the possible sources:
  • The Chapel Hill/Reynolds source describes itself in the last line as "a press release". So far as we know, it has not been published in a journal or subject to any other form of peer review. It does not use standard academic reference systems in the sourcing. This is not an academic source for WP:RS purposes.
  • The information was republished in Pink News, but we don't usually regard press releases that are cut-and-pasted into small newspapers as meeting our standards either.
  • The quotation from Mr Moore in the Southport Visitor reads to me like an inelegant attempt to neither confirm nor deny, after a leading question. The headline in QLocal offers an unambiguous interpretation: "As a gay MP...". However, someone claiming to represent Moore's office, apparently from a Parliamentary IP says our earlier interpretation of this quotation is libelliously inaccurate and it will be removed soon. The consensus seems to be that these sources are disputed.
  • Are we treating the Conservative press release as a secondary source or a primary source? It seems neither fish nor fowl. A political party is hardly an independent third party regarding its candidates, so presumably we are treating this as a statement by the subject about himself. But if the anon IP is right, the subject flatly denies this. And once again we see the Reynolds press release listed in the sourcing. You would hope that the Tories would check this stuff with their own candidates, but this is not actually a statement by Mr Moore, is it?
  • The WP:BLP policy states: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I realize that "allegation" is not quite the right word for this situation, but the point stands: we should be very sure before adding contentious information. I don't see how any discussion of Mr Moore's sexuality in the article could be compatible with WP:BLP right now. Wait for the dust to settle. If the QLocal headline is still on the web in a week's time, then we should put much more weight on it and include the claim.

Matt's talk 19:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: We do not see Reynolds' press release in the sourcing. We see Reynolds' research project cited for the two parties who didn't self-disclose their own membership. That said, all of the projects' publications seem to be self-published; I don't immediately see bylines to journals. —C.Fred (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That said, I agree with the proposal immediately above. Let's leave it out for a week and see what happens. Does QLocal retract? Do the LGBTories? Does a reporter ask the direct question and get an on-the-record answer from Moore? Does Reynolds disclose another secondary source for the project's information? We're in no hurry, and per BLP, let's leave it out until then. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I phoned his office and apprently Mr Moore has never made any staments on his sexuality. So really anything else is just rumour. The "LGBT+ Conservatives" will apprently being revising there statement, which is what PinkNews are using. So no "self declared". It not really important one way other the other unless he starts voting against gay rights.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kitchen Knife, both for taking the time to phone and, crucially, for asking the right question. It's not unknown for politicians to say different things to different people. Again, let's wait and see whether the secondary sources respond (they have commercial incentives to publish if they find anything fishy). Matt's talk 23:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I read the previous revisions. There are only a few sentences in the article. Mentioning his sexuality gives undue weight to the topic unless it is a defining characteristic. The article comes across as; he is a politician and he is gay, end of story. In that regard, the article is probably not accurate. TVGarfield (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)