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 of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
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 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
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 Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
David Coburn MEP (
talk·contribs) / David Coburn (politician) David Coburn (politician) This user has declared a connection. (COI declared
here)
Although he has a COI, I personally don't see the big deal with listing his residency as Kensington, London under a "personal life" header. The only issue is I don't want to invest the time in doing it (semi-retired) and it needs more information than simply: "He's gay and resides in Kensington, London". If someone could see to this I think we can keep everyone happy and improve the article. Thanks ツ Jenova20(
email)17:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
No, being a
Member of the
European Parliament representing
Scotland, his main and official address for electoral and other public and general purposes necessarily has to be an address within Scotland. To claim that "Mr Coburg "lives" in Knightsbridge" would, in effect, be tantamount to (the same as) indirectly accusing him of committing some sort of an electoral fraud here in the United Kingdom, or even of committing criminal fraudulent representation in Scotland, and it would most certainly be libellous. Perhaps a safer and a more neutral wording, such as "He divides his time between Edinburgh (as he claims), London (no particular need to specific spell out which part of London, and least of all, which part of Central London, that he probably has a flat; personally, I don't see; but I have no strong personal opinion about the inclusion of Knightsbridge), Brussels and Strasbourg", on word along those lines, and to that effect, would be preferable?! (It is probably academic now anyway.) --
5.198.6.211 (
talk)
19:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Guardian story
I think this is noteworthy and deserves a mention. So long as we avoid any hint of self-reference I think it should remain in the article. The Guardian is a respectable source for this. --
John (
talk)
19:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
As is the Scotsman, as is STV. Here is a quote from the Scotsman article: 'Mr Coburn’s chief of staff, Arthur Misty Thackeray, dismissed the incident and said that “David’s not an IT expert”.
He said: “I can’t believe some idiot has tried making a story about something that is open-source and viewable to the public.
“The staff team do not run a Wikipedia page for David.
“A Wikipedia page is up in David’s name and there were edits made which David believed were inaccurate and lies.
“He attempted to change them to accurate statements but obviously the Wikipedia entries kept being changed back and he persisted in trying to change them and ended up blocked.
“There were various entries about David’s schooling and university time which were inaccurate.
“But it goes to the heart of the fact that David’s not an IT expert, so things like Wikipedia aren’t his strong point.
“He’s gone there in good faith to try and change it, but people can put any old rubbish up and lo and behold after trying to put things right he’s ended up blocked.”'
I know, it's confusing, isn't it? Reading all three sources it seems clear that he did it himself. The Scotsman is a reputable paper and it is publishing a quote with Coburn's party spokesman saying that he did it. That is good enough for me. --
John (
talk)
20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
It is more complex. The Guardian says it is Coburn, the Scotsman quotes Thackeray as saying so, while STV attributes to Thackeray that "MEP had tasked a member of his staff to make the changes and had not done so himself". Since it is a BLP, we need to set the highest standards. How about this?
An account operated by Coburn's office was blocked. Coburn's office confirmed the edits were by them, and some, but not all, news outlets, attribute those edits to Coburn himself.
I have just modified one external link on
David Coburn (politician). 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:
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.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I don't see the point of this as there is already a David Coburn article for the actor of the same name. Seems more appropriate to leave the disambiguation page as David Coburn for simplicity. We have:
David Coburn (actor) and
David Coburn (politician). Why change it to David Coburn and David Coburn (actor)? Thanks ツ Jenova20(
email)10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)reply
The actor,
David Coburn (actor), is older, far more well known, and has had the name longer. He is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suggest leaving as is. The disambiguation page allows everyone the choice of actor or politician. Your way will force everyone to one article, even if they want the world famous Coburn. The actor has a bigger claim to fame and more right to that article name than the politician. Thanks ツ Jenova20(
email)11:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)reply
My argument is primarily that the actor is world famous and much more well known than a politician of a small party in the UK. I would use the same argument to prevent Jack Nicholson (politician) from taking Jack Nicholson over the more famous and well known worldwide of the two. Seems like
common sense to me. Thanks ツ Jenova20(
email)08:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I also wish to correct something. The actor hasn't had the name longer - I mixed their ages up. But, the actor has had an article since 2006, while the politician has had one only since 2014. Again,
common sense seems to point to changing nothing, or changing
David Coburn (actor) to the primary David Coburn. Thanks ツ Jenova20(
email)08:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I don't see any argument or logic behind this requested move at all. Not a personal attack on the OP, but my opinion on this request. Thanks ツ Jenova20(
email)12:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.