Talk:Tom Elliott, Baron Elliott of Ballinamallard

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 sourced must 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.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland 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.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unionism in Ireland (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unionism in Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Unionism in IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandUnionism in Ireland

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Service in the Ulster Defence Regiment

Does anyone know the rank attained by this person? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private/Ranger.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies Section

There seems to be some debate and frequent changes to the Controversies section, with some detail being repeatedly added and removed. A discussion and agreed outcome seems a better solution than constant changes.

The two comments that seem to have issue are around the reason why Elliott refuses to attend Gaelic Athletic Association events and that the Provisional IRA is a proscribed organisation. From what I've read, the previous ban on the security forces contribution in GAA sports is the reason why Elliott will not attend these, and the fact that the Provisional IRA is a proscribed terrorist group provides context regarding the comments made in this incident. Therefore, I propose that these comments remain.

I have removed them as original research, specifically the part that says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented". Neither source is directly related to Tom Elliott. O Fenian (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all including the GAA ban on security forces is a) as O Fenian said presuptious and counts as original research b) not really relavent and c) someone trying to justify his comments about the GAA. The PIRA comment again is unnecessary given that it's so obvious and doesn't add to the article.

Exiledone (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not seeing the comment about the GAA as an attempt to justify his comments, rather to provide context for it. With the PIRA comment, I suspect that may be obvious to people who are close to the subject, but not so obvious to those who are not. Using the logic that neither reference specifically mentions Tom Elliott, would you be happy then to remove the phrase "an organization which contained members who are alleged to have colluded with loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles" so that there is no specific comment on either organisation and both leave the reader to research these organisations directly? My intention is to create an article written with a neutral viewpoint, so I propose that we either include some detail on both PIRA & the UDR, or on neither. Does that sound sensible? Mr Sheep Measham (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr Kelly added that the UDR, British Army, RUC and loyalists were all involved in collusion which resulted in the deaths of many" says the source. No original research there. While it may be true the other two sources cited do not mention Tom Elliott, I believe in this case it would be prudent to keep them just so nobody attempts to only frame collusion as a belief of Gerry Kelly's. If you have reliable sources that explain Tom Elliott's refusal to attend GAA games due to the ban on members of the security forces then that explanation could be included, if not it is original research. O Fenian (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the UDR comment and reference being related to the subject in the same way that the GAA & PIRA comments are, and therefore suggest that either all are to provide context to the unfamiliar reader, or all are removed to allow the unfamiliar reader to research themselves. Mr Sheep Measham (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. The article says "after Kelly had pointed out that Elliott was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, an organization which contained members who are alleged to have colluded with loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles". The source says that Gerry Kelly stated "He [Elliott] is an ex-UDR man", followed by "Mr Kelly added that the UDR, British Army, RUC and loyalists were all involved in collusion which resulted in the deaths of many". That said, since the controversy is over his "scum" and flag comments and not his exchange with Kelly (such exchanges are a regular occurrence) I would have no objection to the removal of the dispute with Kelly in its entirety. O Fenian (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks O Fenian, removing the detail of the Kelly exchange seems a good compromise. Any objections? Mr Sheep Measham (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear I do not mean remove the detail, I mean remove it entirely. So "the scum of Sinn Féin" would be immediately followed by McClarty and his initial refusal to apologise, then his apology. O Fenian (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Mr Sheep Measham (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no comments to the contrary, I have made the relevant change. Thanks for the collaborative approach, much appreciated. Mr Sheep Measham (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tom Elliott (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]