Talk:Bob Stewart (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Gazette references

I've added a couple of these already, but fuller details of his army career can be extracted from the

London Gazette
, see:

David Underdown (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think the gazettes added may need checking - his regimental number was 487588. Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, that's exactly what I searched on, some fo the refs need a apge range though, and where promotion dates etc are given, he doesn't actually appear on the first page of the range. David Underdown (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General appearance and affair

It seems odd, when one knows Robert Stewart as a military affairs pundit and an MP of over a year's standing, for him to still be referred to on Wikipedia as a 'British Army officer.' Also, he confessed this morning to a life-changing extramarital affair on the BBC programme Sunday Morning Live, which now makes the entry look incomplete (altho updating it feels a bit like colluding with a possible publicity stunt).--86.31.105.33 (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The description is purely to identify him from the several other Bob Stewarts who have WP entries - including
talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
'Not news?' Sunday Morning Live clearly thought so, perhaps marking another indicator or milestone on the road towards the rehabilitation of, or society's apparent acceptance of, divorce, in the case of what is otherwise clearly a somewhat conservative, Establishment figure - his 'foible,' perhaps?--92.27.106.244 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Career in Ulster

If Stewart was 'responsible for controlling and responding to the Droppin Well bombing in Ballykelly,' does this mean that he was therefore responsible for the summary execution in Northern Ireland of two unarmed INLA members 'mistaken for' INLA leader Dominic McGlinchey? Article reference no.9, which appears to refer to Stewart's actions on the day of the Ballykelly bombing, currently appears to link in fact to an online T shirt store(?!).--86.31.105.33 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations. Firstly, "responsible for controlling and responding to..." is ambiguous and can lead to some over-egging of the pudding. Reading an article from The Guardian (24 April 1993) reveals: "Colleagues say he was quick on the scene, dragging the bodies out of the carnage when the IRA struck at the Dropinwell disco in County Armagh." The linked article from which the "responsible etc..." statement originates also describes him as the "incident commander." Stewart was only a company commander at the time, probably at captain or a major rank, certainly with nowhere near the authority to order the operation you refer to. Secondly, that was an RUC action, not an Army action. As for the duff reference, you're right, it appears that the original domain registration has expired. The archive shows this for June 2009. Still not a particularly reliable source, though.
talk) 09:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Either Commander Stewart was 'responsible for responding to the Droppin Well bombing,' or he was not; and the history of the period shows a British Establishment not always inclined to maintain fine distinctions, between e.g., police, army, 'intelligence,' 'security forces' and indeed, out-and-out hoodlums.--92.27.106.244 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Responding" is not being used in the way that you infer; it is being used in the sense of a "first responder" coordinating eg medical, rescue, casualty evacuation efforts. It isn't being used to infer that he was responsible at a political or state level for determining a wider tactical retaliatory operation, eg "Britain responds to incident x..."
Sorbet 08:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Rudolf hess

The source supporting the line "He guarded Rudolf Hess in Spandau Prison, Berlin.[4]" is a dead link.

I believe an archived version is available at http://archive.li/OIEUU.

Someone who knows how to do it better than I do, please add the link as an archived source done

(As an aside, no dates for this part of his life are mentioned) Hydromania (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also available here Hydromania (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2018

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Although support has a slight advantage in numbers, no argument for moving has been offered, let alone one based in policy. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hundreds 17:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 19 December 2018

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Bob Stewart (British Army officer) → Bob Stewart (politician) – There was clearly consensus to move, just not what to move to. Only one user said he was better known as an officer than a politician, whilst the communist was never elected to any form of political office. Unreal7 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Bob Stewart (politician) was moved to Bob Stewart (communist). The most perinant comment was that he was not really a politician. Which seems to be correct. That changes things, with respect to last months RM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Best known, now, as a politician, and the other BS is not known as a politician, he was an activist, party member, communist, but not a politician, no evidence he ever even ran for a public office. In the previous RM, I mistakenly assumed his qualifier was correct. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as best known as a politician, with most of the reservations laid out in the previous RM dealt with by the moving of the communist Stewart to his present article title. Ralbegen (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He's a serving MP in a national legislature; whilst his army service was undoubtedly distinguished he hasn't been an army officer for two decades now. In line with page titles for other ex-Forces MPs like Johnny Mercer (politician). The possible naming conflict with the communist activist is no longer an issue. Dtellett (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as before. Still best-known as a soldier. Unlike others, he was already well-known as a soldier before he was elected to Parliament. He was a senior and outspoken commander in Bosnia and would have been notable enough for an article even without being an MP; Johnny Mercer, on the other hand, was an unknown junior officer and his only claim to fame is being an MP. The cases are not alike in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the most natural disambiguator for a sitting MP. Bob Stewart (British Army officer) will confuse readers looking for a politician. Narky Blert (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.249.229 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why

(@Thewolfchild) Why are you stopping me editing I edited Isabel Hartman page because I didn’t know how to edit ( I agree with you removing that btw ) but the edits on bob Stewart’s page were justified and I don’t know why you’re trying to stop me edit It’s my right to edit something Buggzydude (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buggzydude: You "didn't know how to edit" and with only one day and 20 edits worth of experience, you still don't. I added a 'welcome' template to your talk page. I would strongly encourage you to read through it, all of it, including all links contained therein, as well as all the notices and warnings posted on your talk page, before you edit any further.
I don't know how you missed the request posted on my talk page, but issues regarding articles are typically discussed on the article's talk page, not on user talk pages. That way, others in the community can join in. You have repeatedly removed sourced content, and offerred no reliable sources of your own to counter the information you are claiming as "non-factual". Do not remove that content again unless you have said sources, or consensus to do so. -
wolf 22:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Conviction

The conviction should be clearly stated in the lead, regardless of any intention to appeal the man is a convicted criminal. An example I read this evening would be Stacey Koon who is described as a convicted criminal in the opening sentence of his article. Legally speaking Stewart is a convicted criminal, we are not here to downplay this fact. LittleEye90 (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the conviction in the article makes sense to me. Mentioning it in the lead also makes sense to me. Having it in the very first sentence seems undue. Having it in the short description is indefensible. Squeakachu (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this comparison makes zero sense. You're comparing Bob Stewart, a serving MP who received a £600 fine, with an LAPD sergeant who is primarily known for being one of the officers who beat Rodney King. You can still mention Stewart's conviction in the lead, but mentioning it in the very first sentence is definitely undue. There are several MPs who were convicted of offences, such as Angus MacNeil, Jamie Wallis and Chris Huhne. None of their articles take such an approach. It's not "downplaying" Stewart's criminal conviction not to mention it in the first sentence, when it's already clearly stated in the lead. It is very disproportionate otherwise. 87.115.251.186 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am closing this RfC for two reasons. First, an RfC statement must be "
AN3. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]


Information about this politician's criminal convinction and other matters has been added by User:Ellwat and I. This has been repeatedly reverted by User:Infoknowledge23 and User:77.108.142.116. The two users have left no edit summaries on the majority of their edits and appear to be making exactly the same edits - I suspect they are one and the same. I believe that a criminal conviction received by a politician is without doubt noteworthy and should be present in the article. I did attempt to discuss the issue starting a talk threat on 12th November but have received no response. LittleEye90 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Stewart_(politician)&oldid=1210482551"