Talk:Otis Ferry

General

This article needs revision. While Otis Ferry does not merit much if any sympathy, Wikipedia requires objectivity. The article is littered with points of view. Whether they can be supported by websites (recognised or otherwise) is not the point. Articles should be neutral and express as little opinion as possible.

What does the reference to the blatherskite website achieve? This is not a recognised news source and the assertion that he is a "pain in the butt" clearly raises opinion ratehr than factual issues.Informed Owl (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

While I agree with you about the blatherskite quote, I find no lack of objectivity or "littered with points of view" and I find that assertion very unfair. I have spent a lot of time tidying this article up and sourcing it correctly. I have therefore undone your edit as it is entirely accurate and properly sourced and is totally objective: Daily Telegragh????? Please respect this. Captainclegg (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It had not been my intention to be unfair. It is just so important that if Wikipedia is to serve its purpose that its articles be as neutral as they possibly can. As a very broad rule, the use of adjectives raises NPOV issues. The Blatherskite quote really shone out and (as a result) brought much of the article down with it. Its removal redresses things and although the Telegraph reports are not entirely objective, the whole tone of the article is far more neutral. I am certainly happy to discuss any furhter changes here though before making them.

Someone should perhaps dig out some other information about him though. An objective reader of the article might come to the conclusion that it had been created with the intention simply of listing his brushes with the law ("He has a string of criminal convictions to his name"). While one cannot ignore this aspect of his past / present (indeed, it would be wrong not to report it), there must be other aspects which can be mentioned. Anyone?

I have my doubts about "stepson of right-wing businessman Robin Birley.". It is not as though he chose for his mother to re marry. He is also 24 years old when it happened: it is not as though he was brought up by Brierly! I also question "right wing". He is certainly right of centre, but I think we get into difficult NPOV issues again when leaping to brand people "left wing" or "right wing". Obvioulsy, reference to his parents' remarriages / new relationships is relevant (again - I would question though why there is only reference to his mother's remarriage in the same way as there was only reference to Alun Michael's quotation. It makes the "right wing" label all the more loaded, as though it was the only reason for mentioning it)Informed Owl (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Thank you for that well informed discussion. However, I can't find ANY further aspects about the subject (apart from tittle-tattle that has no place on Wikipedia)! Re Birley: if you have a read of the article about him, you will see that he would probably give Lord Tebbit a run for his money in a Right-Wing definition! Anyone who says "He has done an immense amount for Chile" about Pinochet has well and truly nailed his name to the VVV right-wing mast! Captainclegg (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But I should add, that as far as fair and balanced goes, I am not wedded to the definition. Captainclegg (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a fair point! (regarding the Pinochet observation!) :-)Informed Owl (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

School

Where did he go to school? In more than one of the sources quoted throughout the article, it is stated that he went to Eton, rather than Malborough College. Informed Owl (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

I have no idea where he went to school. I did not include that information. Captainclegg (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be he went to both! It would appear that he was expelled from one of them. Should that section perhaps be edited to include references to both (with links to the articles which refer to the respective schools?)Informed Owl (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

I would agree with that. Captainclegg (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference to Eton (together with link to article in support). Not entirely satisfactory: it is not that clear that he went to both (or in what order). It is possible that one of the newspaper articles is wrong! If Wikipedia is to serve its purpose, this ought to be cleared up. If it cannot be, then the reference to where he went to school ought to be deleted.Informed Owl (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Naming Ferry's girlfriend (WP:NPF violation?)

Previous versions of the article name Ferry's girlfriend. She does not appear to be notable and does not appear to be related to anyone notable (eg. she is not listed as a child of the former TV/movie star who shares her unusual surname). As naming her therefore contravenes WP:NPF (in particular, as a friend of a pro-hunt activist, she may be subject to victimisation), I've removed her name. However can anyone provide a well-sourced reason to name her? For instance, has she attracted any media attention for her activities? If she's already notable as public figure (as, for example, are Ferry's mother and father), then there is no reason not to name her, as anyone intending to victimise Ferry's friends and family will already have sufficient information elsewhere. Conversely, if there are sourced examples of her being victimised then I am happy to raise this at WP:BLPN and get previous revisions, which do name her, permanently and irretrivably deleted (and, if necessary, get this page protected to prevent re-naming). Her victimisation appears to be a serious possibility given that Ferry's hunting lodge was burgled by what, from the items taken, would suggest to be animal rights activists. Andrew Oakley (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree about removing the girlfriends name. I was surprised that it was added originally, but let it go. Captainclegg (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have obviously decided to take over the editing of this article, so I will resign from it. This is something I cannot deal with Wikipedia about. You spend ages researching and building an article and then someone comes in and bullies their way into re-editing everything, with no manners enough to ask if they can, or explaining what God-given right they have to overrule you and who or how they have appointed themselves literary arbitrators. It is the height of rudeness, bullying and misuse of power. Enjoy the article and try not to lean one way or the other. Captainclegg (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, with multiple individuals working within official Wikipedia policies to provide information from reliable sources. The article previously contained numerous official policy violations including WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:WEASEL which required correcting, several of which required urgently correcting in order for Wikipedia not to fall foul of libel, privacy or harassment law. If there are edits of mine with which you disagree, and with which your version still fits within official Wikipedia policies, then feel free to re-edit the article directly, or discuss here. You cannot own an article; see WP:OWN and WP:OR. Andrew Oakley (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to see Captainclegg go. I hope he / she does not. I think that the article is in far better shape now than it has been in the past (although I still wonder whether reference needs to be made to his arrests where no charge followed). It is of course open to any contributor to Wikipedia to make changes to the article provided the relevant guidelines are followed. Informed Owl (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Informed Owl

Ferry's girlfriend has been arrested for perverting the course of justice too, and it's all over the local papers. I think her status as WP:NPF has just disappeared. Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Un-redlinking Nimmo as per WP:BLP1E following case collapse in Jan/Feb 2009. Andrew Oakley (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail / Sunday Mail fascination?

Is there a particular reason why Ferry is featured so heavily in the gossip columns of the Daily Mail and Sunday Mail? For example, does he have a direct or indirect relationship with any of the Mail's owners or journalists? From the list of arrests and convictions, Ferry is clearly quite a twit no matter which side of the hunting fence you sit, so I'm just wondering whether the Mail have any particular motives to tell his side of the story, or whether it's just a normal part of the Mail's general sucking-up to Z-list celebs and the upper classes that they've been doing for decades. I'm getting fed up with looking for references and constantly coming up with that dreary rag. Plus, if there's a fairly substantial direct link between Ferry and the Mail, we'll need to consider whether Mail can be considered a reliable source or whether Mail references violate NPOV. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the reality is that most of the media does not maintain the obsession with this kind of story that the Daily Mail does. That said, most of the references are from the Telegraph and Sky News. I only came across this article when searching for information about him on google, having felt that he had not been in most of the media for some time. I would not say that the cited Mail's coverage is particularly favourable to him (nor is it unduly unfair). The point could be made that to the extent that it favourable, the general tone of this Wikipedia article compensates for it. Informed Owl (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

How many actual convictions, and for what, exactly?

Clegg stated in the article history that Ferry has 3 convictions. I can find sources for one pro-hunt protest (convicted under Public Order Act following House of Commons protest) and one drink-drive conviction (Cirencester) but I'm having trouble tracking down the other conviction. As this is potentially libellous (although borderline - he hasn't much of a good reputation to defend), we need to either source this other conviction, or remove it from the article, urgently. Can anyone provide any hints as to his other conviction? I'm happy to do the research if others can just provide a summary and a year. Please note that arrests, charges and trials are NOT convictions; a conviction is only where the court has found someone guilty of a crime (also note strict definition of crime, which is not a civil offence). Thanks - Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that he has only two convictions, one for storming the House of Commons (Public Order Act) and one for drink drive. Will amend article accordingly. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is in a much happier shape than it was a month or so ago although, as you say, NPOV issues remain. While you make a fair point about arrests not being the same as convictions, I think it equally fair to remember that the section is headed "arrests, charges, verdicts". I wonder why it was felt necessary to list arrests in respect of which he was not actually charged, but I think the heading makes it clear that it is dealing not just with convictions. I don't see that any civil wrongs (torts) have been mentioned, so do not follow the point you make about them. Informed Owl (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

As he only has one hunt-related conviction and one drink-drive (not 2+1 as per previous revisions), I've significantly re-worded the introductory section. One bit that I'm not too sure about is "He has been arrested and charged several other times for activities relating to hunting, none of which have led to convictions." I do think that it is worth drawing attention to the sheer number of times he has been arrested, as this is notable in its own right, but I also don't want to suggest that this indicates any guilt on his part. If he is being frequently arrested but not convicted, then this might suggest police harassment, just as easily as it might suggest he's getting away with something. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the intro. Two edits by Informed Owl May 5 and May 15 lead to the error. First the House of Commons incident was removed, leading to a dangling other convictions in the text. Then the word other was removed, leaving the text saying erroneously that there had been no convictions relating to hunting. Hu (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

British / English Prisoners etc

I see that this category has been added. It's a bit niche isn't it? Informed Owl (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

And now "People convicted of drink driving offences". What next? "Sons of rock stars" "People whose mothers have married a second time to people who have Eurosceptic views".

Following a number of recent edits, this article was in the best shape it had been in for a long time. Hopefully it will stay that way.Informed Owl (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

You could propose deletion under WP:CFD. MikeHobday (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Shall keep a watching eye over it. I see that the category "people convicted of drink driving offenses (sic)" is up for deleteion anyway, so it may well take care of itself.Informed Owl (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

2008/9 - re-write required?

Ferry was formally acquitted yesterday of 'witness intimidation'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/5253925/Otis-Ferry-cleared-of-witness-intimidation-charges.html

I wonder whether the blow by blow account of the events leading to his acquittal remains necessary? A simple, 'he was charged, spent time on remand and was then formally acquitted, being left to face an assault charge' might suffice (with appropriate references)

Certainly the opening paragraphs need attention with much deletion to record the present situation.

(Interesting that the speed with which details of his charges / refusal of bail / convictions is recorded on here is not matched by the speed of the update to record his acquittal ...) Informed Owl (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Informed Owl

I have had a go at editing to reflect the most recent development. I have also deleted some of the 2008 entries which always were a little too detailed and have now very much been overtaken by events. Informed Owl (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl

Re-reading it, I still feel it needs some pruning. The article is far too detailed in places. I propose deleting references to arrests without charge.Informed Owl (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl

Not sure I agree. Certainbly arrests without charge don't carry any perjorative meaning, but they are part of a pattern of behaviour which is notable in its own right. Are there any relevant Wikipedia policies? MikeHobday (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll let it bed down for a while. Perhaps just a little less detail is required throughout: just making the point that he has been arrested on occasions and then focusing the detailed entries on those which have resulted in convictions. As matters stand, the article is focused purely on arrests / charges / convictions. There must be something else to say about him (although I am not entirely sure what that may be!) Informed Owl (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Informed Owl

I have made a number of changes. I have removed repetition and checked the content of each link against what it said in the article. There were a number of inaccuracies. On balance, I kept reference to arrests resulting in no charge / acquittal. Informed Owl (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl.

I wonder if now is a time for a major re-write of this section. It descends into a great deal of detail about charges of which he was acquitted. (Indeed I would suggest that much of the article is far too detailed for a work such as Wikipedia). Is it perhaps sufficient, in relation to the later charges, simply to say that he was charged and acquitted, rather than giving what almost reads like a daily diary of Ferry's life. Informed Owl (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl

Prose would be better than a list. But I'd oppose deleting relevant text as outlined above. MikeHobday (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Prose might be a better way forward. I shall give it a go. I don't intend deleting any of the earlier charges. It is all relevant. It just struck me that given there was a time when this article was giving a blow by blow account of the most recent charges, it is now somewhat cumbersome. We can now look at the matter afresh after the passage of time and make the point that he was acquitted or certain charges. Whether much more detail is required, is open to question. Informed Owl (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl.

(I should make clear that I am neutral on the question of fox hunting. I am neither a supporter nor an opponent of it)Informed Owl (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl

I have made a start on the re-write. While I have kept all relevant details, I have removed some of the material which was too detailed with the elapse of time Informed Owl (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl

What I have done is keep the reference to the initial event which gave rise to the charge / trial in question and then put all the details with it. I hope this makes it easier to follow each incident where there was some crossover during the 2 years it took for the last charge to come to trial. I have not been able to find a source for what happened to the common assault charges. Informed Owl (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl

Time for another prune?

It strikes me that the 2007 entries require trimming given that they resulted in acquittals. They will be approaching 4 years old in 2011. Informed Owl (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl

Tagging of article

Following the concerns expressed about this article at User talk:Jimbo Wales‎, tagging for cleanup/rewrite seemed like the best option. I'm unconvinced that Otis Ferry meets WP:GNG, but if the article has to stay, it should be pointed out that he is notable for only two things:

• Being the son of Bryan Ferry.
• Being a pro-hunting campaigner, occasionally in the news as a result of his protests.

Listing all his court appearances is blatant WP:COATRACK behaviour, and including incidents for which he was not charged or subsequently acquitted suggests editing by someone with an agenda. Pretty much all of this should go.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with IanMacM. JN466 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed the "arrests" which were not followed with any charges at all. Collect (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is completely the wrong approach. When protesters are falsely arrested, this is very commonly (and IMHO correctly, though I can't say about Britain) perceived as evidence of political persecution. The protest activities are notable even if no arrest occurred, and likewise, if arrest was not justified. The problem is that indeed for some reason people have too little sympathy for the subject, and have failed to represent this as a series of protest actions rather than a series of "legal problems". Wnt (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Having just seen this article, I don't think it's even salvageable: he's such a borderline-notable figure that the arrests and conviction are the only things to say about him. That arguably means we shouldn't have an article at all. Someone take it to AFD, or boldly redirect it to Bryan Ferry#Personal life, or I will. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh, heck with it, I've been bold and redirected it myself. Based on what we have to say about him, this guy should not have an article. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)