Talk:Committee on Standards in Public Life

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Committee on Standards in Public Life. 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/20090617093701/http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk:80/document/cm28/2850/285002.pdf to http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm28/2850/285002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Needs an update

Members: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life/about/membership PamD 08:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)  Done

Due weight

@PamD: note that per WP:ONUS you need to get consensus for the additions you want to make. I don’t think the way we’re using primary sources is appropriate and I would like an explanation of why you think it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Horse Eye's Back: I included links from other bodies as illustrations of the widespread use of the Nolan principles and their relation to the committee. I consider that the article as it now stands is well sourced. PamD 15:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What encyclopedic purpose does such illustration serve? I also consider the article to be well sourced, the questions I’m asking have to do with cherry picking specific part of those primary sources as well as their general overuse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Thank you for coming to the talk page. The edits you're referring to, so far as I can see, are restorations with additional sources of sweeping deletions that you've made twice now, with no discussion other than a repetition of some edit summaries. I believe the material currently in the article is properly sourced to reliable sources, includes no original research, and is accurate and balanced. It has consensus to the extent that you are the sole editor who objects. Maybe others can chip in here, or perhaps you could expand on your reasoning. You seem to be using a number of guidelines including WP:UNDUE and WP:OR in very unconventional ways.

To repeat here what I said in my reply to the boilerplate message you left on my talk page:

Where sources are still needed they can easily be added, and indeed I see that's already been done by another editor this morning. You've been here a long time and should know very well what the D in WP:BRD stands for. Where your bold deletions of large parts of the article have been reverted, your next step is to go to the talk page, not to re-revert. I would be more than happy to discuss any queries you may have. One particular point you might like to explain (there, not here please) is your basis for using "undue" (presumably a reference to WP:UNDUE) as a kind of catch-all reason for deleting content.

As you are the only editor objecting I suggest you select one passage you don't like, tag it if you want to (don't delete it), and we can discuss here. Let's take it one by one. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

We can start at the top and work our way down, in the organization section why are we cherry picking that specific information from the primary source? Also note that "The Committee does not investigate individual allegations of misconduct, that being the role of the relevant regulator.” appears to be OR as the statement in the source only says "We are not a regulator and cannot investigate individual complaints.” with nothing about the role of the regulator. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the use of the term "cherry picking" here: any use of a source which does not use every statement in that source could be so described. For "cherry picking", read "using the source to support material added to the article". PamD 15:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it could be so described, thats generally why people are happy to offer an explanation of why they used one part of a source and not another (specifically in this context I’m failing to see how how a description of the committees responsibilities belongs in a section about the committee’s organization). Do you understand my use of the term original research? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Thank you for commenting. That allows progress. I see that the source has been amended in place since the text was written. The original version is here. It specifically lists the responsibilities shown and says "Our remit does not allow us to investigate individual allegations of misconduct. That is the role of the relevant regulator." I've no objection either to pointing the reference to the archive page or to amending the text there to match more closely the current version of the source. MichaelMaggs (talk)

I'd already updated the ref to the "About" page. Will go and keep away now to avoid edit conflicts. PamD 16:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Linking to top level of CSPL website

Can I strongly suggest people do not link to the top level of the CSPL website as it is highly volatile and a subsequent check reveals no sign of the verified content. When an access date is present this helps identify possible archives from the the cited content may still be available. If the top level website must be linked to I would suggest adding an archive-url= (with use url-status=live or put url-status=usurped to start off with or simply use {{webarchive}} to avoid link rot and subsequence maintenace. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now linked to the "membership" page, which will also be volatile, but I have archived today's version which supports the membership and vacancy (I don't think it is "Original research" to subtract 7 named members from a stated membership of 8 and conclude that there is currently a vacancy, and I've added an "As of" template). I think it's perhaps more important to remember to archive today's version of a volatile source, and link to it, rather than avoiding linking to a particular level. PamD 11:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)