Talk:Derek Draper

Self-styled psychotherapist

this section is very poor, and in need of a rewrite.  Done

There are alot of negative claims giving undue weight and I know that the gardian was made to publically apologise about these claims. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

here is what I had...are there any problems with inserting this...

Psychotherapist training

After leaving politics, Draper claims on his website to have retrained as a psychotherapist, obtaining an MA in clinical psychology after "three years in Berkeley, California". While "in Berkeley", he claims to have worked as "the development director of a community counselling centre"; later, to have entered "private practice in Marylebone, London". Draper has since clarified that he in fact studied at the Wright Institute of California, a graduate school in the town of Berkeley founded by Nevitt Sanford.

Draper responded to the controversy surrounding his claimed 'psychotherapy degree', by denying the allegations completely and saying that this was "a brazen attempt to smear me by Guido Fawkes and David Hencke". He has also stated he is considering taking legal action against them. Draper has claimed to be a member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, although does not appear to be currently on their register and does not appear on it's website. Regarding the doubts surrounding his qualifications, Draper commented, "Every week I see vulnerable people, some with life threatening mental illnesses and it is a disgrace to call into question my professional qualifications on the most concocted and inaccurate of grounds. Draper writes an occasional column for the Mail on Sunday newspaper on psychotherapy issues and also writes monthly columns in the magazines “Psychologies” and “Therapy Today”. He is also the author of a chapter in The Future of the NHS.

this has been here some time .. if there is no objection I will insert the new details. .. tomorrow,(Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

In general good but here's three possible edits of the text.

Just Psychotherapist as a title.

'In response to these allegations Draper stated that he in fact studied...' Shows that it was a response to a set allegation.

And 'He has also stated he is considering taking legal action against them. In response Staines called on him to serve the writ or 'fuck off'' If legal action is threatened we should include the other side's response. Or not include the threat at all.

I'd also consider removing the 'Every week I see vulnerable people...' as I don't see what it adds and sounds a tad self serving, and adding something like 'Draper's actions in the 'Smeargate' scandal has been seen by some in the mental health profession as inappropriate behaviour for a psychotherapist.' Rsloch (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Recommending Tactical Voting against Labour

This section / comment is unexplained and makes no sense at all. why did he do this ,who said he did it , what were the outcomes of it ..in what way is it significant to drapers biography? Is is just an anti blair comment? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Why did he do this? Possibly because he didn't like Blair anymore - but we shouldn't speculate. Just report the facts. The fact that people close to the heart of new labour have turned against each other is worthy of reporting - Draper criticising Blair to the extent of suggesting tactical voting against labour. Mandelson criticising Brown to Draper all seem worthy of reporting in that they help explain part of the characters of the people involved. And this seems to me relevant to biographies generally and the biography of Draper in particular. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

the statement alone as it stands adds nothing to the article at all.Are there other cites for this worthless POV rubbish, what does it add? what caused this? what happened to this tactical voting? the comment alone is rubbish and if you can not add to it I am going totake it out as a stand alone unexplained unsupported POV pushing addition. best wishes to you too(Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Also it is good to remember that you are not reporting facts but only adding comments written in newspapers and a great deal of which is not wothy to insert in an encyclopiac biography. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Until you can expand on this comment to explain what it is worth and find additional cites to support it then I am removing it. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Lobbygate and Mandelson

What DD is best known for is subjective but it is how he is often introduced in the media. I see no harm in it staying and no gain in removing it.

As for his emails from Mandleson it is important to give a flavour of what a senior Labour figure was saying to him about the PM as it shows how much of a confident he was (or is) to PM. The quotes aren't too long and are refed so what's the problem?

In general two things, one DD exists in a world of claim and counter claim, insult and counter insult so we will have to quote some of them. As long as they are refed and presented as opinion not fact then they are valid, and two it's always better to include things than remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lede for you to include the thing that people are talkin about , lobbygate is a complete mystery to me and most other people. the addition of lobbygate in the lede will not encourage any to read more... leave it out.

It is in no way needed to included all gossips... and the insert about these malis supposedly sent to dd are irrelevent in his biography... (Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

If 'lobbygate' is a mystery to you perhaps you shouldn't be editing an article that features a major player in it.

The issue is what DD is best known for and I'd suggest that is his involvement in those two scandals. I don't see why you see it is such a major issue.

As for the Mandelson emails, a major Labour figure sending DD emails insulting the Labour party leader and MP has relevance. Also this isn't 'gossip' but what Mandelson said (as the ref shows), and there are no POV issues as I'm simply adding the views of a third party.

Rsloch (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lobygate section

This section is not too bad as it stands..apart from this.. which stands alone and doesn't make any sense, are there any other cites for this? and could it be expanded on to make a bit more sense? here it is ......

Draper urged people to vote tactically against Labour in the 2005 General Election, saying, "I don't want my vote to be used as vindication for Tony Blair, I'd like him to wake up after the election and feel like a hunted man"

Why did he do this? Who did he urge and if this statement is to be offered as a quote from Draper, then who did he say it to? I just don't get it! The cite is from question time and I have twice and I am non the wiser? Read it and see what you think (Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Also this comment....

" Palast also said that Draper was "nothing more than a messenger boy, a factotum, a purveyor, a self-loving, over-scented clerk."

.....from Palast, is derogatory and unnecessary and nowhere near encyclopediac or middle of the road. It should be removed asap.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Although I've never understood why Palast is a respect journalist and the comment with the others gives a sense of people's views at the time. Removing it totally would make things sterile.

Perhaps it should be put in the refs with something like 'Draper came under attack from a number of people because of his actions' in the text. Rsloch (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Any comments? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

early life section.

The block quote...mentioning , threesomes, cocaine and bondage is nothing but a satirical article in the private eye and doesn't meet BLP guidlines for inclusion and should be removed. Are there any other claims that cocaine and 3somes and bondage are part of drapers life? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC))...

The sobriquet 'dolly' ...why dolly? by who? when? if dolly is to stay the reasons should be expanded on.

As it says on the page (WP:BLP)....we are not a tabloid paper. BLPs must be written conservatively, not sensationalist. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to consider.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Any comments on this section and my ideas? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Mass Edits

To mass edit an article removing perfectly valid material, and links, for example to remove links to Paul Staines' blog, ruins it. If you want to make major changes please explain what you are going to do here and see what people say don't just do it.

Rsloch (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is a load of tosh and is basically an attack page, It is not a place to political bandstand, it is a Biography of a living person. I had almost finished rewriting it to be a middle of the road type article. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

I am rewriting it. To bring some neutrality to it.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

You misunderstand the concept of Wikipedia. This isn't a solo effort but a group one. Rewriting material that many have worked on based on your judgment is unreasonable.

If you are going to do such large an edit you should state what you are going to do on the Talk page first giving others a chance (and that means a day or two) to comment. Rsloch (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look here at the WP:BLP you will see what is required, especially this..Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

"Unsourced or poorly sourced" means just that; it does not mean that you think the journo who wrote the article is an idiot, or biased - it means that the source of the allegation is not clearly identified so that people can check your statements. It's about verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

political blogspots? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

If by "blogspots" you mean blogs, certain blogs are deemed reliable sources, either as arms of a known reliable source, or on their own. Others just as definitely are not, since they fall under the category of self-published, unedited works. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Blogs can be reliable sources, but in this case the blogs in question are part of the story of Smeargate.

Rsloch (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This article demonstrates a misuse of Wikipedia, whereby sources that may meet Verifiability have not been double checked against Neutrality. The two policies must be considered jointly. Remember that the latter policy states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors". Wikipedia should also avoid sources based on rumours and personal opinions. What is going on in Decca Aikenhead's gossip piece in the Guardian lifestyle section is the retailing of rumours in the mainstream press, using material from the satirical magazine Private Eye. Private Eye is said to be bankrolled by major newspapers as a venue to float innuendo and rumour to see if it sticks—if Private Eye is not sued, the material then creeps into the mainstream press and starts to jellify as fact (if it is sued, the press as a whole will cover the fines). This is all very well for newspapers (and very clever), but Wikipedia shouldn't subscribe to that process and should deal only in transparent facts (or provide balancing material). I hold no brief for this Draper guy: but even if certain editors to this article want to see him vilified, I'd strongly suggest that the plain facts do this man little credit enough: the embellishment of the information with what any reader can see is biased sneering will only undermine the credibility of the whole article. qp10qp (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Personality

"Draper hosted the Student Union quiz nights which frequently imploded under his own bombast, egotism and drunkeness. "

-appropriate?

Answer - Yes. Although there is no way of equalling the description of him as a self loving, over-scented clerk, which is untouchable. The only thing i can think of that would be more ironic than him writing a column on psychotherapy would be dietary tips from the king of Tonga.

Could you give your reasons for why a description of him in such terms is appropriate in an encyclopaedia article? Are there any sources for his drunkenness and implosion of the quiz nights? Magic Pickle 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it gives a good insight into his own particular megalomania, which in itself begs the question why a "Labour" movement would recruit such an obvious narcissist. The only evidence i can give , sadly , is that i attended more than one of his fiascoes.

(sigh) I would ask that you read Wikipedia:Verifiability as personal recollections do not count as good enough evidence of a fact for placement on here. Your description of Draper's bombast and egotism and drunkenness would not have a place in a conventional encyclopaedia. Magic Pickle 10:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Wiki is not by any stretch an 'encyclopedia'. It is a juvenile joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.155.187 (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I remember Derek from uni and, subjective as it may be, I must say that sounds like a very accurate description of him. HairyDan 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I removed part of the 'Internet activities' section of this article, as it was essentialy an unsourced synthesis that seemed to be implying unethical behaviour on Draper's part, without any references to allegations made in reliable sources. Under WP:BLP, all comments about living people, particularly negative ones, must be well-sourced, and original research is not permitted. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Derek Draper's time with Labour students

I cannot see this mentioned. Does anybody have any information pertaining to this ?

Macolmxl5 a sockpuppet of Derek Draper or a supporter ?

I see user Malcolmxl5 has been reviewing this page and making deletions.

They seem to be very favourable to Derek Draper. This user described a report on speculation as being potentially libelous - which I disagree with. Reporting speculation is only presenting the speculation as a "matter-of-fact" and not supporting the speculation itself.

Also this user removed the nickname because it was unsourced. I found a source very easily - and have added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Negative press

If possible please try to put any Negative Comments under the subject heading "Controversies", I think it's unprofessional to have a biography completely littered throughout with negative comment, it's supposed to be POV neutral.

I'm not suggesting that these comments should be censored, but just put together under controversies - and ofc make sure they are sourced - but that goes without saying. Kbdguy (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's the very inverse of how we should do things. Segregating negative stuff into a "criticisms" or "controversies" section is discouraged. To quote Jimbo Wales, "I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms" --Orange Mike | Talk 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

I think quite a few people including myself are watching this page because there are so many anonymous edits.

There was a large text removal which I just reverted.

If you are going to make a change just put in a comment why - and if I have an opinion - I won't revert - I will discuss first if I have a strong view, but won't revert out of respect. Just either (1) get an account or (2) add a comment why you are making a large change, and you'll be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Damian McBride

Have added a section on the Damian McBride email scandal as it is likely to have implications for Draper. At present it is titled "Damian McBride", but another title might be more appropriate. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A second MA

I have tried to a add "Decca Aitkenhead reported that he was studying for a second MA at the Tavistock Clinic" Citing the reference: Decca Aitkenhead "The lady and the scamp", The Guardian, 5 November 2005. Retrieved on 12 April 2009.

At the end of the Self-styled psychotherapist section. It was removed for using a "link to gossip piece story". Is this a valid reason? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes it is. (Off2riorob (talk))

You are more than welcome to add it, just find a stronger, less gossipy cite for it. Is it the comment you want to add or the cite?(Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Added again but removed Decca Aitkenhead's name. Hope that is OK. I can't fina another source (Msrasnw (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

So as of 2016, is he a working psycho therapist by now? 83.251.164.50 (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tactical Voting against Labour and Mandelson's email to Draper attacking Brown

Both seem to me useful - revealing details of character and views. Both sourced. I think more discussion about why they might not relevant before deleting again. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

That's an old bloody controversy by now. Draper's a silly monkey probably a Gorilla in fact. However I disagree fully with any vendettas being pursued against him. He has kept away from the spotlight. Think about it this was a man who made a mistake or two. Now he's kept his head down there's no point in blowing everything out of proportion endlessly. Nusgnitteseht (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Derek Draper. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newstatesman.com/199908160005
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/347375/GOVERNMENT-fixer-Peter-Mandelson-delivered-a-damning-indictment-of-Gordon-Brown-telling-one-of-his-closest-former-aides-that-the-PM-needs-to-change-because-he-is-a-self-conscious-person-physically-and-emotionally.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6078542.ece
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/culture-media-and-sport/analysis-pressure-on-labourlist-$1287846.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death - long covid

His heart problems are the consequences of long covid. Check the BBC out. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the DM not a reputable source?

It clearly states on the article, the night of Wednesday the 3rd as the date of his death. What because it’s not the BBC or Guardian? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12930001/derek-draper-dead-kate-garraway-husband-covid.html Hevski77 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

DM has been discussed aplenty; WP:DAILYMAIL covers it (see links to RFCs there). The statement in that article is really woolly though – it says "DM understands he died on Wednesday night..." (my emphasis) which is not the same as stating "he died on Wednesday night". They are not attributing the claim to anyone (it cannot be WP:V) and the fact that it is not corroborated by Garraway's statement means we must be cautious. If multiple sources are reporting that particular date then so be it, but right now they're not. MIDI (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

DM states the date as being January 3, the location being a North London hospital, so this seems pretty explicit in stating "he died on Wednesday night". Per WP:RSPDM, we can't use this to verify, but it does mean we should be wary of obituaries published today that state the date of death as the 5th, when there is reasonable doubt of that being the case. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

MailOnline understands he passed away on January 3 in a North London hospital (Not 5 January as state). Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12932987/kate-garraway-derek-draper-request-coma-covid.html 2A04:202:721B:8A00:7CB7:1714:6033:EC3E (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see above, Daily Mail is not an RS per WP:DAILYMAIL Cannolis (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Nickname

I've reverted an edit that added a nickname, which doesn't seem to be a well known one, and isn't sourced widely. If more sources are available then I guess we can put it back in, although I'm not sure how relevant it would be. This is Paul (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Annotated for posterity as "...OWNership and censorship after 22 minutes of the published facts that I purposely buried..."; can be seen at User talk:This is Paul#Dolly Draper. I ain't a beginner, and I know how/why nicknames can/should be in the lead sentence and didn't go there.....obviously the 2024 Sky source and Mirror knew of it in 2024. If I had spent an inordinate amount of further time and theoretically added more, some wise-boy could shout WP:CITEKILL? Rule of three?

I do appreciate the courtesy to WP and thoroughness of a Talk heading, though - that's about the most complimentary I can be. I wish I could 'say' it's been a pleasure. --82.13.47.210 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

His nickname was certainly widely known at the time, at least among people who read what political journalists were writing. I've reinstated a mention of it - in the extraordinarily thin section of the article that covers the period during which he made his reputation - and added a couple of reputable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)