Talk:Simon Danczuk

What is the former family name of Karen Danczuk?

What about the name Danczuk? Is it polish? Czech? Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.96.58 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Family rape allegations - ignore for now?

I propose we leave out the Karen Danczuk-brother rape allegations until the police have come to some conclusion, we are an encyclopedia not a newspaper. It's torrid, see the latest Mail story, and very sad for her family either way - I think we should keep out of this. Rwendland (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Porn

Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article should mention that Danczuk publically admitted watching hardcore porn in March 2015. It is notable because he was the first Member of Parliament to do this. (MichaelO'Finn (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)) The first member of Parliament ever to view porn? Really? The claim is intrinsically of trivial value in any BLP. 16:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Expenses and Salary

@Sakino Akura: I see no need for this section. We don't normally include peoples salary and expenses in their biography, and everything is sourced to a primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we should exercise extreme caution in doing that. Baring a secondary source saying why his salary or expenses are notable it shouldn't be in his bio. — Strongjam (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally there are lots of sources around expenses claims in the UK, some of them are even reliable, however it would still be undue. The problem is MP's expenses, while being extensive and attracting criticism, are for the most part completely legal. The expenses 'scandal' was about illegal/improper expenses claims, which as far as the sources go, do not indicate Simon Danczuk participated in. So he claimed a fair bit. This is not news and wikipedia is not a tabloid. "MP CLAIMS X!" is not the tone for a biographical article on a living person. And frankly an SPA who shows up and edit wars to insert this information smacks of a hit-job to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam You may see no reason why expenses shouldn't be included on a wikipage but this is very much in the public interest. All of the information I provide is factually correct and sourced from a government website.(primary source) http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Default.aspx As you may or not be aware the MP expense scandal is highly relevant for wiki, also I think you are under the false impression that the Simon Danczuk wiki page is a bio. Wiki is an independent information resource. Information being the all important distinction from what your idea of it is.

I do understand some of your concerns but you obviously have a vested interest in keeping such information hidden from the public. :( As a new wiki user I intend on revealing several MP's expense claims on their wiki page. All highly relevant to the public given the recent expense scandals.

As I said before please stop deleting my articles. No copyright infringement is taking place which you used as primary reason for deleting my articles.

I will make one last attempt and hope you respect my edit, please let it stand.

I will not hesitate to contact the UK media and draw further attention to this dispute if you continue your futile attempt to dictate what is and isn't said on wiki. sakino Sakino Akura (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's important find a mainstream secondary source that says so. — Strongjam (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam Secondary source? Are you suggesting that a UK Government Website set-up for reasons of transparency isn't enough.? http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Default.aspx As you are aware any wiki edits I make that include secondary sources would be immediately deleted by yourself for copyright infringement.(as you have already done) You don't have grounds to delete the new official Government sources I provide. So stop doing so!

Its obvious you are trying to hide the truth about Simon Danczuk expense claims. But as I said it is in the UK public interest to know what each of their respective members of parliament are claiming, that is why the Government setup the http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk

I am trying to resolve this issue in the best possible way. As I said I won't hesitate to contact the UK Media (including several Rochdale publications) as I am quite certain this dispute will be of interest to them. sakino Sakino Akura (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A secondary source, like a news article, or a book. Something to explain why his salary and expenses are notable. If the UK media would be interested in this, then certainly they must have published copious material about Mr. Danczuk's expenses? — Strongjam (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam Simon Danczuk expenses are notable due to the misappropriation of public funds (expense scandel) He's a Labour MP for Rochdale and it is in the public interest to have a debate about his expenses.(amongst several other MP's) But hey here's one such secondary article, in fact there are several other websites that highlight Simon Danczuk excessive claims. http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2013-09-13/rochdale-mp-defends-198k-expenses-claims/ I still see no reason why you won't accept an official Government Source for articles.

sakino Sakino Akura (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia has several core policies. Relevant here are WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and for your edit simply plagiarizing an entire newspaper article: WP:COPYVIO. Claims must be based on reliable secondary sources and not on primary sources. Wikipedia does not allow us to use primary sources to prove a point. Wikipedia is not a site for conducting political campaigns.

We only use what we find to be of significance to the living person in any articles. We can not assert that a person misappropriated public funds unless a very strong secondary reliable source makes the claim - and as that us an assertion of a crime, it has to be a damn strong source.

We also are required to make sure such biographies are written carefully and with a neutral viewpoint.

And please feel free to tell local media that our goal is to keep Wikipedia from being used to attack or promote people based on the political views of any editors - the goal is to make an encyclopedia which is neutrally worded and usable for an extended period of time in the future. Editors who try pushing their favourite candidates or parties do not belong on this site. Collect (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Collect You falsely claim that my edits are based on a political campaign. I am merely drawing attention to Simon Danczuk expense claims, this I believe is very much in the public interest. Particularly those who live in Rochdale. Simon Danczuk is a public servant and should be accountable at every level.

Re: Avoid misuse of primary sources Further information: WP:PRIMARY WP:BLPPRIMARY

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[4]

My use of WP:BLPPRIMARY is in this case I believe is acceptable (exception), I make no assertions other the how the facts are clearly laid out and available for all to see. http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Default.aspx Public servants are and should be held accountable and not hide from the truth, we still live in a democracy until told otherwise. Your attempts to suppress information is not in the interests of the wiki organization or the public. Politicians should not be able to control wiki either. sakino Sakino Akura (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Kindly do not impute any wrong motives - all I am doing is following the rules of Wikipedia here. For you to get the stuff into any WP:BLP you need to have strong reliable secondary sourcing making the claims you wish to have Wikipedia state, and you then need to convince everyone else that the information belongs in this BLP (WP:CONSENSUS). "BLP" means "biography of living person" and, as far as I know, the person whose name is on this article is, indeed, a living person. Collect (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Collect @Strongjam :The Simon Danczuk wiki page is now under FULL watch, any attempts to further edit manipulate or remove articles will be fully challenged. At some point in the near future I will restore my submissions regarding Danczuk's widely reported excessive expense claims. Spin doctors aren't welcome here!!! (preceding warning from a 20-edit editor Sakino Akura)

Unfortunate, SA, you have not yet managed to repeal WP:BLP. When you do so, kindly inform us all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

bankruptcy

"Insolvency actions" are, in fact, bankruptcy actions. If debts are discharged, the company has gone bankrupt. In order to discharge taxes, the requirement is bankruptcy - one does not cease business in simple temporary insolvency. "Urban Visons Ltd" was "liquidated" according to all news accounts. [1] makes this quite clear. (" Second notification of stike-off action in London Gazette (Section 652).") [2] ("That the Company be wound up voluntarily; and that M J Colman and J M Titley, both of Leonard Curtis, 24 Wellington Street, St Johns, Blackburn BB1 8AF, (IP Nos. 9721 and 8617) be and are hereby appointed as Joint Liquidators for the purposes of such winding-up and that the Joint Liquidators be authorised to act jointly and severally in the liquidation.” ) UK law uses the term "bankrupt" for "natural persons" only, but the English language does not draw that same nicety. The applicable laws are the same. Saying a company is bankrupt is correct if it is liquidated with insufficient funds to pay creditors. Collect (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Outside of finance and law yes, people often confuse bankruptcy and insolvency. However they are distinctly different things. We shouldnt be labelling a company as bankrupt when it is insolvent/has been wound up, (likewise you wouldnt refer to a person as insolvent when they are bankrupt etc). The point of an encyclopedia is to educate, and using the correct term allows you to link to the relevant article when using an incorrect one wouldnt. Saying that, if the source uses the incorrect usage, it should be explained in the article the actual status - example: "Company was declared bankrupt (liquidated) in 19XX". Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually just checked the source, at no point does it say bankrupt. Voluntary Liquidation is not even the same as Involuntary Liquidation, let alone bankruptcy. 'Wound up' or 'was liquidated' would be the appropriate terms here. I am not persuaded that in English general usage there is no distinction - we rely on sources and the ones here clearly state liquidated - which is the correct term. Also dont make me break out the BLP as Bankruptcy *only* applies to individuals and this is a biography - it could be taken as an implication Danczuk was bankrupt himself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite apart from companies do not 'go' bankrupt. They go bust - insolvent, and get wound up. Even if they were technically bankrupt, you get declared bankrupt, you dont 'go' it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sexual abuse victims activists

I restored Category:Sexual abuse victims activists after it was removed by User:AusLondonder as being "inappropriate". There is an obvious irony to the current news about sexting a 17-year-old, but Danczuk has been a prominent activist for sexual abuse victims, e.g. see [3] [4]. Although he reduced his involvement earlier this year, which he said was due to depression, he was interviewed by LBC on the subject only a fortnight ago. The current news does not erase that campaigning and it is a prominent part of his political career. Fences&Windows 01:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this category remains relevant and should remain, despite recent developments. Robofish (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the category looks far more POV than retention does IMO. Collect (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep it. Regardless of how this story evolves, he was clearly notable for being an activist for quite some time.LM2000 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

He's an MP. His job is to advocate for his constituents. Constituents suffered sexual abuse. He condemned that abuse and sought justice. Could someone tell me how many MP's are in favour of sexual abuse? AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the ones who committed it I assume... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

How many current MP's out of 650 have been convicted of sexual abuse? AusLondonder (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In view of the seriousness of the accusations against Danczuk the category should be removed unless he is cleared. (FarnuBak (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

Sorry, but Danczuk has not been charged with an offence. If the current accusations lead to any developments, any suggested changes to the article should be discussed here first. Whatever happens in the future does not change the work he did in bringing Cyril's Smith's behaviour fully to public attention. Philip Cross (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC) (edited)

Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Smith was never charged with, or convicted of, anything - so he is as innocent as Danczuk by your definition. (FarnuBak (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

Danczuk is innocent until proven otherwise. The accusations against the deceased Cyril Smith are now commonly accepted. Philip Cross (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How are they commonly accepted? And what about Ken Livingstone's accusations about Danczuk? (FarnuBak (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

See Identifying reliable sources and Biographies of living persons. What editor's can, and cannot, include in articles will become clearer. Philip Cross (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So if Danczuk was dead you would say he was guilty? Livingstone said he is a paedophile. (FarnuBak (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

Innocence or guilty is besides the point. He was notable for his role in the Cyril Smith case long before he faced these allegations and nothing is going to change that. Like I said over a year ago, the category should remain regardless of how the story evolves.LM2000 (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Age of consent

The allegation is that sexually explicit text messages were sent. There was no allegation of physical contact. It is true that "the age of consent is 18 in circumstances where the accused is in a position of trust", but it is also irrelevant. The age of consent relates to sexual activity, not text messages.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)